International Journal of Colorectal Disease

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 111–120 | Cite as

Quality of surgical care, local recurrence, and survival in patients with low- and midrectal cancers following multimodal therapy

  • Ilmo Kellokumpu
  • Jaana Vironen
  • Matti Kairaluoma
  • Ismo Jantunen
  • Hannu Kautiainen
  • Kyösti Nuorva
Original Article
First Online:
Accepted:

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the quality of surgical care and outcome following multimodal treatment for low- and midrectal cancers, focusing on differences between low anterior and abdominoperineal resections.

Methods

From 1999 to 2007, 179 patients underwent low anterior resection (LAR), abdominoperineal resection (APR), or proctocolectomy for low- or midrectal cancers. Preoperative (chemo)radiotherapy was given according to local guidelines and adjuvant postoperative chemotherapy in stage III disease. Outcome together with clinical and histopathological data were analyzed in relation to the type of surgery performed.

Results

The postoperative mortality was 2.2%; morbidity, 39.6%; reoperation rate, 8.4%; and readmission rate, 16.0%. Involved circumferential resection margin (CRM ≤ 1 mm) rate was 4.5% (APR 9.1% vs. LAR 2.6%, p = 0.046). Intraoperative bowel perforation occurred in 5.5% of APRs. Anastomotic leak rate was 15.3%. The 5-year overall survival of the 179 patients was 68.5 %; disease-specific survival, 82.2%; and local recurrence rate, 6.3%. The overall, disease-specific, and disease-free survival rates in the 162 patients treated for cure were 73.1%, 84.6%, and 78.3%, and local recurrence rate was 4.4% with no significant differences between LAR and APR. CRM was the only independent predictor of local recurrence and CRM, tumor stage, and level independent predictors of disease-free survival.

Conclusions

Quality of surgical care was in line with the current international standards. CRM was an independent predictor for local recurrence and CRM, tumor stage, and level independent prognostic factors for disease-free survival. Neither the type of surgery (LAR vs. APR) nor the surgical approach (laparoscopic vs. open) influenced the oncologic outcome.

Keywords

Rectal cancer Local recurrence Survival Multimodality treatment Quality of care 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Dahlberg M, Glimelius B, Pahlman L (1999) Changing strategy for rectal cancer is associated with improved outcome. Br J Surg 86:379–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peeters KC, Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID, Kranenbarg EK, Putter H, Wiggers T, Rutten H, Pahlman L, Glimelius B, Leer JW, van de Velde CJ, Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group (2007) The TME trial after a median follow-up of 6 years: increased local control but no survival benefit in irradiated patients with resectable rectal carcinoma. Ann Surg 246:693–701PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sauer R, Becker H, Hohenberger W, Rodel C, Wittekind C, Fietkau R, Martus P, Tschmelitsch J, Hager E, Hess CF, Karstens JH, Liersch T, Schmidberger H, Raab R, German Rectal Cancer Study Group (2004) Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 351:1731–1740PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kressner M, Bohe M, Cedermark B, Dahlberg M, Damber L, Lindmark G, Ojerskog B, Sjodahl R, Johansson R, Pahlman L (2009) The impact of hospital volume on surgical outcome in patients with rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 52:1542–1549PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    den Dulk M, Putter H, Collette L, Marijnen CA, Folkesson J, Bosset JF, Rodel C, Bujko K, Pahlman L, van de Velde CJ (2009) The abdominoperineal resection itself is associated with an adverse outcome: the European experience based on a pooled analysis of five European randomised clinical trials on rectal cancer. Eur J Cancer 45:1175–1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    den Dulk M, Marijnen CA, Putter H, Rutten HJ, Beets GL, Wiggers T, Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJ (2007) Risk factors for adverse outcome in patients with rectal cancer treated with an abdominoperineal resection in the total mesorectal excision trial. Ann Surg 246:83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marr R, Birbeck K, Garvican J, Macklin CP, Tiffin NJ, Parsons WJ, Dixon MF, Mapstone NP, Sebag-Montefiore D, Scott N, Johnston D, Sagar P, Finan P, Quirke P (2005) The modern abdominoperineal excision: the next challenge after total mesorectal excision. Ann Surg 242:74–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anderin C, Martling A, Hellborg H, Holm T (2010) A population-based study on outcome in relation to the type of resection in low rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 53:753–760PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJ, Marijnen CA, van Krieken JH, Quirke P, Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group, Pathology Review Committee (2005) Low rectal cancer: a call for a change of approach in abdominoperineal resection. J Clin Oncol 23:9257–9264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wibe A, Syse A, Andersen E, Tretli S, Myrvold HE, Soreide O, Group Norwegian Rectal Cancer (2004) Oncological outcomes after total mesorectal excision for cure for cancer of the lower rectum: anterior vs. abdominoperineal resection. Dis Colon Rectum 47:48–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shihab OC, Brown G, Daniels IR, Heald RJ, Quirke P, Moran BJ (2010) Patients with low rectal cancer treated by abdominoperineal excision have worse tumors and higher involved margin rates compared with patients treated by anterior resection. Dis Colon Rectum 53:53–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Salerno G, Chandler I, Wotherspoon A, Thomas K, Moran B, Brown G (2008) Sites of surgical wasting in the abdominoperineal specimen. Br J Surg 95:1147–1154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    MacFarlane JK, Ryall RD, Heald RJ (1993) Mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet 341:457–460PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rahbari NN, Weitz J, Hohenberger W, Heald RJ, Moran B, Ulrich A, Holm T, Wong WD, Tiret E, Moriya Y, Laurberg S, den Dulk M, van de Velde C, Buchler MW (2010) Definition and grading of anastomotic leakage following anterior resection of the rectum: a proposal by the international study group of rectal cancer. Surgery 147:339–351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sobin LH, Wittekind C (2002) TNM classification of malignant tumours, 6th edn. Wiley & Sons, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJ, van der Worp E, Kapiteijn E, Quirke P, van Krieken JH, Cooperative Clinical Investigators of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group (2002) Macroscopic evaluation of rectal cancer resection specimen: clinical significance of the pathologist in quality control. J Clin Oncol 20:1729–1734PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dent OF, Haboubi N, Chapuis PH, Chan C, Lin BP, Wong SK, Bokey EL (2007) Assessing the evidence for an association between circumferential tumour clearance and local recurrence after resection of rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 9:112–121. doi: discussion121-122 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dworak O, Keilholz L, Hoffmann A (1997) Pathological features of rectal cancer after preoperative radiochemotherapy. Int J Colorectal Dis 12:19–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pahlman L, Gunnarsson U, Karlbom U (2005) The influence on treatment outcome of structuring rectal cancer care. Eur J Surg Oncol 31:645–649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nagtegaal ID, Marijnen CA, Kranenbarg EK, van de Velde CJ, van Krieken JH, Committee PR, Investigators CC (2002) Circumferential margin involvement is still an important predictor of local recurrence in rectal carcinoma: not one millimeter but two millimeters is the limit. Am J Surg Pathol 26:350–357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bernstein TE, Endreseth BH, Romundstad P, Wibe A, Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Group (2009) Circumferential resection margin as a prognostic factor in rectal cancer. Br J Surg 96:1348–1357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Birbeck KF, Macklin CP, Tiffin NJ, Parsons W, Dixon MF, Mapstone NP, Abbott CR, Scott N, Finan PJ, Johnston D, Quirke P (2002) Rates of circumferential resection margin involvement vary between surgeons and predict outcomes in rectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg 235:449–457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Merkel S, Klossek D, Gohl J, Papadopoulos T, Hohenberger W, Hermanek P (2009) Quality management in rectal carcinoma: what is feasible? Int J Colorectal Dis 24:931–942PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    den Dulk M, Collette L, van de Velde CJ, Marijnen CA, Calais G, Mineur L, Maingon P, Radosevic-Jelic L, Daban A, Bosset JF, Radiation Oncology Group EORTC (2007) Quality of surgery in T3-4 rectal cancer: involvement of circumferential resection margin not influenced by preoperative treatment. Results from EORTC trial 22921. Eur J Cancer 43:1821–1828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Marijnen CA, van de Velde CJ (2001) Preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 88:1556–1557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Elferink MA, van Steenbergen LN, Krijnen P, Lemmens VE, Rutten HJ, Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID, Karim-Kos HE, de Vries E, Siesling S, Working Group Output of The Netherlands Cancer Registry (2010) Marked improvements in survival of patients with rectal cancer in The Netherlands following changes in therapy, 1989–2006. Eur J Cancer 46:1421–1429PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID, Kapiteijn E, Kranenbarg EK, Noordijk EM, van Krieken JH, van de Velde CJ, Leer JW, Cooperative investigators of the Dutch Colerectal Cancer Group (2003) Radiotherapy does not compensate for positive resection margins in rectal cancer patients: report of a multicenter randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 55:1311–1320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Holm T, Ljung A, Haggmark T, Jurell G, Lagergren J (2007) Extended abdominoperineal resection with gluteus maximus flap reconstruction of the pelvic floor for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 94:232–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Balch GC, De Meo A, Guillem JG (2006) Modern management of rectal cancer: a 2006 update. World J Gastroenterol 12:3186–3195PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ignjatovic D, Bergamaschi R (2006) Rectal cancer: from outcomes of care to process of care. Scand J Gastroenterol 41:636–639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    van Gijn W, Wouters MW, Peeters KC, van de Velde CJ (2009) Nationwide outcome registrations to improve quality of care in rectal surgery. An initiative of the European Society of Surgical Oncology. J Surg Oncol 99:491–496PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pachler J, Wille-Jorgensen P (2005) Quality of life after rectal resection for cancer, with or without permanent colostomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):CD004323Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vironen JH, Kairaluoma M, Aalto AM, Kellokumpu IH (2006) Impact of functional results on quality of life after rectal cancer surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 49:568–578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jayne DG, Thorpe HC, Copeland J, Quirke P, Brown JM, Guillou PJ (2010) Five-year follow-up of the medical research council CLASICC trial of laparoscopically assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 97:1638–1645PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ilmo Kellokumpu
    • 1
    • 7
  • Jaana Vironen
    • 2
  • Matti Kairaluoma
    • 1
  • Ismo Jantunen
    • 3
  • Hannu Kautiainen
    • 4
    • 5
  • Kyösti Nuorva
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryCentral Hospital of Central FinlandJyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.Jorvi HospitalHelsinki University Central HospitalEspooFinland
  3. 3.Department of OncologyCentral Hospital of Central FinlandJyväskyläFinland
  4. 4.Central Hospital of Central FinlandJyväskyläFinland
  5. 5.Kuopio University HospitalKuopioFinland
  6. 6.Department of PathologyCentral Hospital of Central FinlandJyväskyläFinland
  7. 7.Jyväskylä Central HospitalJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations