Advertisement

Current Surgical Strategies in the Management of Rectal Cancer

  • José Moreira de Azevedo
  • Bruna Borba Vailati
  • Guilherme Pagin São Julião
  • Laura Melina Fernandez
  • Rodrigo Oliva PerezEmail author
Surgery and Surgical Innovations in Colorectal Cancer (S Huerta, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Surgery and Surgical Innovations in Colorectal Cancer

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The surgical approach to rectal cancer has become significantly more complex with the introduction of neoadjuvant therapies and organ preservation strategies. Optimal radiological imaging in association with relevant clinical findings provides critical information for final surgical management decision. The present review focuses on the surgical alternatives available in different clinical scenarios for the management of rectal cancer.

Recent Findings

Most of evidence for surgical management of rectal cancer is provided by non-randomized studies. However, a few randomized clinical trials have attempted to address the optimal surgical approach for total mesorectal excision. In addition, recent randomized trials have also contributed to the understanding of the role of organ-preserving strategies among patients with excellent response to neoadjuvant treatment. Finally, one randomized Japanese study has provided oncological evidence in favor of prophylactic lateral node dissection among these patients.

Summary

Radical proctectomy with total or partial mesorectal excision is the standard procedure for most patients with primary rectal cancer. Optimal approach for this procedure remains controversial. The decision between sphincter-preservation strategies and abdominal perineal resections should take into account the radiological and clinical findings. More recently, organ-preserving strategies including transanal local excisions may be used in select patients with early-stage disease or among patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment strategies after significant primary tumor regression. Extended procedures including lateral pelvic side lymphadenectomies and exenterative procedures should be done selectively and in highly specialized centers.

Keywords

Rectal cancer Total mesorectal excision Neoadjuvant chemoradiation Laparoscopic surgery Robotic surgery Local excision Watch and wait Lateral lymph node dissection 

Notes

Compliance With Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

José Moreira de Azevedo declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Bruna Borba Vailati has received compensation from Johnson & Johnson and Medtronic for Service as a consultant.

Guilherme Pagin São Julião has received compensation from Johnson & Johnson and Medtronic for Service as a consultant.

Laura Melina Fernandez declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Rodrigo Oliva Perez has received compensation from Johnson & Johnson and Medtronic for Service as a consultant.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Monson JR, Weiser MR, Buie WD, et al. Practice parameters for the management of rectal cancer (revised). Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(5):535–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fleshman J, Sargent DJ, Green E, et al. Laparoscopic colectomy for cancer is not inferior to open surgery based on 5-year data from the COST Study Group trial. Ann Surg. 2007;246(4):655–62 discussion 662-654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    •• Fleshman J, Branda M, Sargent DJ, et al. Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection of stage II or III rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes: the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(13):1346–55 This trial failed to demonstrate non-inferiority of surgical pathology outcomes in rectal cancer after laparoscopic versus open approach.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Abis GA, et al. A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(14):1324–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jeong SY, Park JW, Nam BH, et al. Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(7):767–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    •• Stevenson AR, Solomon MJ, Lumley JW, et al. Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal cancer: the ALaCaRT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(13):1356–63 This trial failed to demonstrate non-inferiority of surgical pathology outcomes in rectal cancer after laparoscopic versus open approach.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Acuna SA, Chesney TR, Baxter NN. ASO author reflections: clarifying the controversy generated by non-inferiority trials of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Acuna SA, Chesney TR, Ramjist JK, Shah PS, Kennedy ED, Baxter NN. Laparoscopic versus open resection for rectal cancer: a noninferiority meta-analysis of quality of surgical resection outcomes. Ann Surg. 2018.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Acuna SA, Dossa F, Baxter NN. Frequency of misinterpretation of inconclusive noninferiority trials: the case of the laparoscopic vs open resection for rectal cancer trials. JAMA Surg. 2018.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    • Fleshman J, Branda ME, Sargent DJ, et al. disease-free survival and local recurrence for laparoscopic resection compared with open resection of stage ii to iii rectal cancer: follow-up results of the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2018; This randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic vs open surgery resulted in equivalent oncological outcomes.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    •• Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, et al. Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: the ROLARR randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;318(16):1569–80 This prospective randomized trial failed to demonstrate decrease conversion rates between robotic or laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sylla P, Rattner DW, Delgado S, Lacy AM. NOTES transanal rectal cancer resection using transanal endoscopic microsurgery and laparoscopic assistance. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(5):1205–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Knol J, Chadi SA. Transanal total mesorectal excision: technical aspects of approaching the mesorectal plane from below. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2016;25(5):257–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Araujo SE, Perez RO, Seid VE, Bertoncini AB, Klajner S. Laparo-endoscopic transanal total mesorectal excision (TATME): evidence of a novel technique. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2016;25(5):278–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    • Penna M, Hompes R, Arnold S, et al. transanal total mesorectal excision: international registry results of the first 720 cases. Ann Surg. 2017;266(1):111–7 This multicenter registry has reported excellent pathological outcomes after taTME for the management of rectal cancer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Adamina M, Buchs NC, Penna M, Hompes R. St.Gallen colorectal consensus expert G. St.Gallen consensus on safe implementation of transanal total mesorectal excision. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(3):1091–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Atallah S, Albert M, Monson JR. Critical concepts and important anatomic landmarks encountered during transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME): toward the mastery of a new operation for rectal cancer surgery. Tech Coloproctol. 2016;20(7):483–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Atallah S, Albert M. The neurovascular bundle of Walsh and other anatomic considerations crucial in preventing urethral injury in males undergoing transanal total mesorectal excision. Tech Coloproctol. 2016;20(6):411–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Smith FM, Rao C, Oliva Perez R, et al. Avoiding radical surgery improves early survival in elderly patients with rectal cancer, demonstrating complete clinical response after neoadjuvant therapy: results of a decision-analytic model. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58(2):159–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    •• Rullier E, Rouanet P, Tuech JJ, et al. Organ preservation for rectal cancer (GRECCAR 2): a prospective, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2017; This prospective randomized study compared local excision vs TME for patients with small rectal cancers and excellent response to nCRT. Outcomes suggested equivalent oncological outcomes in an intention to treat analyses.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Denost Q, Laurent C, Capdepont M, Zerbib F, Rullier E. Risk factors for fecal incontinence after intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54(8):963–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Didailler R, Denost Q, Loughlin P, et al. Antegrade enema after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: the last chance to avoid definitive colostomy for refractory low anterior resection syndrome and fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018;61(6):667–72.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Celerier B, Denost Q, Van Geluwe B, Pontallier A, Rullier E. The risk of definitive stoma formation at 10 years after low and ultralow anterior resection for rectal cancer. Color Dis. 2016;18(1):59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    • Rullier E, Denost Q, Vendrely V, Rullier A, Laurent C. Low rectal cancer: classification and standardization of surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(5):560–7 This clinical and anatomical subclassification of distal rectal cancer provides an excellent guide for optimal surgical management of rectal cancer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJ, Marijnen CA, et al. Low rectal cancer: a call for a change of approach in abdominoperineal resection. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(36):9257–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    How P, Shihab O, Tekkis P, et al. A systematic review of cancer related patient outcomes after anterior resection and abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer in the total mesorectal excision era. Surg Oncol. 2011;20(4):e149–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shihab OC, Heald RJ, Holm T, et al. A pictorial description of extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. Color Dis. 2012;14(10):e655–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    West NP, Anderin C, Smith KJ, Holm T, Quirke P. European extralevator abdominoperineal excision study G. multicentre experience with extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2010;97(4):588–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    • Prytz M, Angenete E, Bock D, Haglind E. Extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer–extensive surgery to be used with discretion based on 3-year local recurrence results: a registry-based, observational national cohort study. Ann Surg. 2016;263(3):516–21 This registry-based study suggested that extraelevator approach should be considered in patients with ≤ 4 cm from anal verge rectal cancers and those at higher risk for intraoperative complications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Beyond TMEC. Consensus statement on the multidisciplinary management of patients with recurrent and primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes. Br J Surg. 2013;100(8):1009–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kusters M, Slater A, Muirhead R, et al. What to do with lateral nodal disease in low locally advanced rectal cancer? A call for further reflection and research. Dis Colon Rectum. 2017;60(6):577–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kusters M, Uehara K, Velde C, Moriya Y. Is there any reason to still consider lateral lymph node dissection in rectal cancer? Rationale and technique. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2017;30(5):346–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    •• Fujita S, Mizusawa J, Kanemitsu Y, et al. Mesorectal excision with or without lateral lymph node dissection for clinical stage II/III lower rectal cancer (JCOG0212): a multicenter, randomized controlled, noninferiority trial. Ann Surg. 2017;266(2):201–7 This prospective randomized trial failed to show non-inferiority of TME plus prophylactic bilateral LLND vs TME alone.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    •• Fujita S, Akasu T, Mizusawa J, et al. Postoperative morbidity and mortality after mesorectal excision with and without lateral lymph node dissection for clinical stage II or stage III lower rectal cancer (JCOG0212): results from a multicentre, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(6):616–21 This randomized controlled study showed that the only intraoperative complication significantly associated with lateral lymph node dissection was increase intraoperative blood loss.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    • Saito S, Fujita S, Mizusawa J, et al. Male sexual dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery: Results of a randomized trial comparing mesorectal excision with and without lateral lymph node dissection for patients with lower rectal cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG0212. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42(12):1851–8 This prospective study demonstrated that lateral lymph node dissection is not a risk factor for male sexual dysfunction.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    • Yamaguchi T, Konishi T, Kinugasa Y, et al. laparoscopic versus open lateral lymph node dissection for locally advanced low rectal cancer: a subgroup analysis of a large multicenter cohort study in Japan. Dis Colon Rectum. 2017;60(9):954–64 This case-matched study demonstrated that laparoscopic approach significantly reduces blood loss when compared to open lateral lymph node dissection.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Perez RO, Sao Juliao GP, Vailati BB, Fernandez LM, Mattacheo AE, Konishi T. Lateral node dissection in rectal cancer in the era of minimally invasive surgery: a step-by-step description for the surgeon unacquainted with this complex procedure with the use of the laparoscopic approach. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018;61(10):1237–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    • Ogura A, Konishi T, Cunningham C, et al. Neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy with total mesorectal excision only is not Sufficient to prevent lateral local recurrence in enlarged nodes: results of the multicenter lateral node study of patients with low cT3/4 rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2018;JCO1800032. This retrospective large study showed that TME plus LLND for LLNs with a short axis at least 7 mm on pretreatment MRI results in a significantly lower LLR rate when comparing to TME alone.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bhangu A, Brown G, Nicholls RJ, Wong J, Darzi A, Tekkis P. Survival outcome of local excision versus radical resection of colon or rectal carcinoma: a surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) population-based study. Ann Surg. 2013;258(4):563–9 discussion 569-571.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Greenberg JA, Shibata D, Herndon JE 2nd, Steele GD Jr, Mayer R, Bleday R. Local excision of distal rectal cancer: an update of cancer and leukemia group B 8984. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(8):1185–91 discussion 1191-1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Clancy C, Burke JP, Albert MR, O’Connell PR, Winter DC. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus standard transanal excision for the removal of rectal neoplasms: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58(2):254–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bach SP, Hill J, Monson JR, et al. A predictive model for local recurrence after transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2009;96(3):280–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Perez RO, Habr-Gama A, Lynn PB, et al. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for residual rectal cancer (ypT0-2) following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy: another word of caution. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(1):6–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pucciarelli S, De Paoli A, Guerrieri M, et al. Local excision after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: results of a multicenter phase II clinical trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(12):1349–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Verseveld M, de Graaf EJ, Verhoef C, et al. Chemoradiation therapy for rectal cancer in the distal rectum followed by organ-sparing transanal endoscopic microsurgery (CARTS study). Br J Surg. 2015;102(7):853–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Perez RO, Habr-Gama A, Sao Juliao GP, et al. Transanal local excision for distal rectal cancer and incomplete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation - does baseline staging matter? Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57(11):1253–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Perez RO, Habr-Gama A, Sao Juliao GP, et al. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) following neoadjuvant chemoradiation for rectal cancer: outcomes of salvage resection for local recurrence. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(4):1143–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Perez RO, Habr-Gama A, Sao Juliao GP, Proscurshim I, Scanavini Neto A, Gama-Rodrigues J. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for residual rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy is associated with significant immediate pain and hospital readmission rates. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54(5):545–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lezoche E, Baldarelli M, Lezoche G, Paganini AM, Gesuita R, Guerrieri M. Randomized clinical trial of endoluminal locoregional resection versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for T2 rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. Br J Surg. 2012;99(9):1211–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    • Garcia-Aguilar J, Renfro LA, Chow OS, et al. Organ preservation for clinical T2N0 distal rectal cancer using neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and local excision (ACOSOG Z6041): results of an open-label, single-arm, multi-institutional, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(15):1537–46 This prospective study reported excellent oncological outcomes for early rectal cancer managed by nCRT followed by local excision.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Habr-Gama A, Perez RO, Wynn G, Marks J, Kessler H, Gama-Rodrigues J. Complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy for distal rectal cancer: characterization of clinical and endoscopic findings for standardization. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53(12):1692–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Perez RO, Habr-Gama A, Pereira GV, et al. Role of biopsies in patients with residual rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation after downsizing: can they rule out persisting cancer? Color Dis. 2012;14(6):714–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Dos Anjos DA, Perez RO, Habr-Gama A, et al. Semiquantitative volumetry by sequential PET/CT may improve prediction of complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation in patients with distal rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2016;59(9):805–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lambregts DM, Maas M, Bakers FC, et al. Long-term follow-up features on rectal MRI during a wait-and-see approach after a clinical complete response in patients with rectal cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54(12):1521–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    •• Lefevre JH, Mineur L, Kotti S, et al. Effect of interval (7 or 11 weeks) between neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and surgery on complete pathologic response in rectal cancer: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial (GRECCAR-6). J Clin Oncol. 2016. This randomized controlled trial comparing 7 to 11 weeks interval from CRT to radical surgery failed to demonstrate increase complete pathological response rate between groups. Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Perez RO, Habr-Gama A, Sao Juliao GP, et al. Optimal timing for assessment of tumor response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation in patients with rectal cancer: do all patients benefit from waiting longer than 6 weeks? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;84(5):1159–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    • Dattani M, Heald RJ, Goussous G, et al. Oncological and survival outcomes in watch and wait patients with a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: a systematic review and pooled analysis. Ann Surg. 2018;268(6):955–67 This systematic review and meta-analysis showed similar overall disease-free and incident of distant metastases between patients managed nonoperatively or with radical surgery after complete response to nCRT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    •• Chadi SA, Malcomson L, Ensor J, et al. Factors affecting local regrowth after watch and wait for patients with a clinical complete response following chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer (InterCoRe consortium): an individual participant data meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018. This meta-analysis with individual participant data demonstrates a good correlation between baseline staging and risk off local regrowth after nonoperative management of patients with rectal cancer and complete response after nCRT. Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    •• van der Valk MJM, Hilling DE, Bastiaannet E, et al. Long-term outcomes of clinical complete responders after neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer in the International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD): an international multicentre registry study. Lancet. 2018;391(10139):2537–45 This registry-based data reports long-term oncological (local regrowth rates) among nearly 900 patients with rectal cancer managed nonoperatively after a complete clinical response following nCRT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Habr-Gama A, Sao Juliao GP, Gama-Rodrigues J, et al. Baseline T classification predicts early tumor regrowth after nonoperative management in distal rectal cancer after extended neoadjuvant chemoradiation and initial complete clinical response. Dis Colon Rectum. 2017;60(6):586–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    • Habr-Gama A, Sao Juliao GP, Vailati BB, et al. Organ preservation in cT2N0 rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy: the impact of radiation therapy dose-escalation and consolidation chemotherapy. Ann Surg. 2019;269(1):102–7 This study compared outcomes of organ preservation strategies among cT2N0 rectal cancer patients undergoing 2 distinct nCRT regimens. Patients undergoing nCRT with RT dose escalation and consolidation CT were more likely to result in successful organ preservation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    •• Garcia-Aguilar J, Chow OS, Smith DD, et al. Effect of adding mFOLFOX6 after neoadjuvant chemoradiation in locally advanced rectal cancer: a multicentre, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(8):957–66 This prospective non-randomized study showed that patients with rectal cancer undergoing additional cycles of consolidation CT are more likely to develop complete pathological response after nCRT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Glynne-Jones R, Wallace M, Livingstone JI, Meyrick-Thomas J. Complete clinical response after preoperative chemoradiation in rectal cancer: is a “wait and see” policy justified? Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(1):10–9 discussion 19-20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Borstlap WAA, van Oostendorp SE, Klaver CEL, et al. Organ preservation in rectal cancer: a synopsis of current guidelines. Color Dis. 2017.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • José Moreira de Azevedo
    • 1
  • Bruna Borba Vailati
    • 1
  • Guilherme Pagin São Julião
    • 1
  • Laura Melina Fernandez
    • 2
  • Rodrigo Oliva Perez
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Angelita & Joaquim Gama InstituteSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Champalimaud FoundationLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations