Advertisement

Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

, Volume 40, Issue 11, pp 1294–1298 | Cite as

Incidence of free colorectal cancer cells on the peritoneal surface

  • Michael J. Solomon
  • Matthew Egan
  • Rachael A. Roberts
  • Jeanette Philips
  • Peter Russell
Original Contributions

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The etiology and significance of port site recurrence occurring after laparoscopic-assisted resection for colorectal cancers will not be determined until controlled clinical trials determine if it is a predictor of out-come. Indirect evidence in support of transcoelomic spread of viable cancer cells to port sites during resection can be postulated by the presence of free cells on the fresh surface of colorectal specimens during primary resection. PURPOSE: The study contained herein was undertaken to determine the incidence of free surface colorectal cancer cells by cytology during elective open resection and to correlate their presence with clinicopathologic variables. METHODS: Fresh clamped and ligated consecutive colorectal cancer specimens were assessed in the operating room during primary resection for the presence of free colorectal cancer cells during an 18 month period at one institution. Clinicopathologic variables were assessed prospectively and blinded to cytology results. Interobserver reliability of cytologists was excellent (unweighted kappa, 0.93). RESULTS: Overall, 15 of 103 (14.6 percent) colorectal cancers had positive cytology for cancer cells on the peritoneal or perirectal surface of the bowel. T3 and T4 tumors, the size or site of the tumor, lymph node status, mucinous characteristic, degree of differentiation, and the presence of vascular or neural invasion did not reach statistical significance as predictors of positive cytology in this study sample. The operative procedure performed was a statistically significant predictor of positive cytology. More than 50 percent of lymph nodes involved (28 percent), poorly differentiated tumors (28 percent), and the presence of liver metastases (22 percent) demonstrated a higher incidence of positive cytology, but this did not reach significant levels because of the limited power of the study sample for subgroup analysis. DISCUSSION: The presence of free surface colorectal cancer cells gives only indirect support to the transcoelomic route to port site recurrence. The significance and true incidence will only be determined by prospective database analysis and randomized, controlled trials.

Key words

Port site Recurrence Colon Rectum Cancer Laparoscopy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cirocco WC, Golub RW. Abdominal wall recurrence after laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer. Surgery 1994;116:842–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wexner SD, Cohen SM. Port site metastases after laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cure of malignancy. Br J Surg 1995;82:295–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berman IR. Cancer recurrence after laparoscopic colectomy—a missing link? [letter]. Dis Colon Rectum 1995;38:330–1.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leather AJ, Kocjan G, Savage F,et al. Detection of free malignant cells in the peritoneal cavity before and after resection of colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37:814–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hughes ES, McDermott FT, Polglase AI, Johnson WR. Tumour recurrence in the abdominal wall scar tissue after large-bowel cancer surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 1983;26:571–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Skipper D, Cooper AJ, Marston JE, Taylor I. Exfoliate cells andin vitro growth in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 1987;74:1049–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ambrose NS, MacDonald F, Young J, Thompson H, Keighley MR. Monoclonal antibody and cytological detection of free malignant cells in the peritoneal cavity during resection of colorectal cancer-can monoclonal antibodies do better? Eur J Surg Oncol 1989;15:99–102.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Quan SH. Cul-de-sac smears for cancer cells. Surgery 1959;45:258–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mathew G, Watson DI, Rofe AM, Baigrie CF, Ellis T, Jamieson GG. Wound metastases following laparoscopic and open surgery for abdominal cancer in a rat model. Br J Surg 1996;83:1087–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Turnbull KB, Kyle K, Warson FR, Spratt J. Cancer of the colon: the influence of the no-touch isolation technique on survival rates. Ann Surg 1967;166:420–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Solomon MJ, McLeod RS. Should we be performing more randomized controlled trials evaluating surgical operations? Surgery 1995;118:459–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Neugebauer E, Troidl H, Spangenberger W, Dietrich A, Lefering R. Conventionalversus laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the randomised controlled trial. Br J Surg 1991;78:150–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael J. Solomon
    • 1
  • Matthew Egan
    • 2
  • Rachael A. Roberts
    • 1
  • Jeanette Philips
    • 2
  • Peter Russell
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Colorectal SurgeryUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Anatomical PathologyUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations