Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 786–793 | Cite as

Focus on Extralevator Perineal Dissection in Supine Position for Low Rectal Cancer Has Led to Better Quality of Surgery and Oncologic Outcome

  • Ingrid S. Martijnse
  • Ralph L. Dudink
  • Nicholas P. West
  • Dareczka Wasowicz
  • Grard A. Nieuwenhuijzen
  • Ineke van Lijnschoten
  • Hendrik Martijn
  • Valery E. Lemmens
  • Cornelis J. van de Velde
  • Iris D. Nagtegaal
  • Phil Quirke
  • Harm J. Rutten
Colorectal Cancer

Abstract

Background

After abdominoperineal excision (APE), the presence of tumor cells in the circumferential resection margin (R1) and iatrogenic tumor perforations are still frequent and result in an increased rate of local recurrences. In this study, a standardized supine APE with an increased focus on the perineal dissection (sPPD) is compared to the customary supine APE.

Methods

From 2000 to 2010, a total of 246 patients underwent APE for rectal cancer (sPPD and customary supine APE). All patients were staged with preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and received neoadjuvant treatment (n = 203) when margins were involved or threatened (cT3 + and T4). As a result of a quality improvement program in 2006, the surgical technique was modified: it became standardized, emphasis was placed on the perineal dissection, and pelvic dissection was limited to avoid false routes when following the total mesorectal excision planes deep into the pelvis.

Results

Overall, the percentage of involved circumferential resection margins (CRMs) was 10%. In the period before introducing sPPD, the R1 percentages for cT0–3 and cT4 tumors were 6.8 and 30.2%, compared to 2.2 and 5.7% after introduction of sPPD (P = 0.001). Risk factors for R1 resection were preoperative T4 tumors (14.9%, P = 0.011), tumor perforation (33.3%, P = 0.002), fistulating tumors (35.7%, P = 0.002), mucus-producing tumors (23.1%, P = 0.006), or bulky tumors (66.7%, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

The objective of surgical treatment of low rectal cancer is to obtain negative resection margins and subsequently reduce the risk of local recurrence. A combination of the appropriate preoperative treatment and standardized surgical technique such as sPPD can achieve this goal.

Keywords

Rectal Cancer Total Mesorectal Excision Local Recurrence Rate Circumferential Resection Margin Levator Muscle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgment

PQ and NW are supported by Yorkshire Cancer Research.

Disclosure

The work was not sponsored, no disclaimers from any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Heald RJ, Husband EM, Ryall RD. The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery—the clue to pelvic recurrence? Br J Surg. 1982;69:613–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Heald RJ, Ryall RD. Recurrence and survival after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet. 1986;1:1479–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Quirke P, Durdey P, Dixon MF, et al. Local recurrence of rectal adenocarcinoma due to inadequate surgical resection. Histopathological study of lateral tumour spread and surgical excision. Lancet. 1986;2:996–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kapiteijn E, Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID, et al. Preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision for resectable rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:638–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Quirke P, Steele R, Monson J, et al. Effect of the plane of surgery achieved on local recurrence in patients with operable rectal cancer: a prospective study using data from the MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG CO16 randomised clinical trial. Lancet. 2009;373:821–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sebag-Montefiore D, Stephens RJ, Steele R, et al. Preoperative radiotherapy versus selective postoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer (MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG C016): a multicentre, randomised trial. Lancet. 2009;373:811–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    den Dulk M, Krijnen P, Marijnen CA, et al. Improved overall survival for patients with rectal cancer since 1990: the effects of TME surgery and pre-operative radiotherapy. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44:1710–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    van Gijn W, Krijnen P, Lemmens VE, et al. Quality assurance in rectal cancer treatment in the Netherlands: a catch up compared to colon cancer treatment. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010;36:340–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elferink MA, van Steenbergen LN, Krijnen P, et al. Marked improvements in survival of patients with rectal cancer in the Netherlands following changes in therapy, 1989–2006. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:1421–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anderin C, Martling A, Hellborg H, et al. A population-based study on outcome in relation to the type of resection in low rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53:753–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    den Dulk M, Marijnen CA, Putter H, et al. Risk factors for adverse outcome in patients with rectal cancer treated with an abdominoperineal resection in the total mesorectal excision trial. Ann Surg. 2007;246:83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    den Dulk M, Putter H, Collette L, et al. 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. 2009;45:1175–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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;23:9257–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shihab OC, Brown G, Daniels IR, et al. 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. 2010;53:53–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eriksen MT, Wibe A, Syse A, et al. Inadvertent perforation during rectal cancer resection in Norway. Br J Surg. 2004;91:210–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bebenek M. Abdominosacral amputation of the rectum for low rectal cancers: ten years of experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:2211–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holm T, Ljung A, Haggmark T, et al. Extended abdominoperineal resection with gluteus maximus flap reconstruction of the pelvic floor for rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2007;94:232–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    West NP, Finan PJ, Anderin C, et al. Evidence of the oncologic superiority of cylindrical abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3517–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    West NP, Anderin C, Smith KJ, et al. Multicentre experience with extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2010;97:588–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dresen RC, Gosens MJ, Martijn H, et al. Radical resection after IORT-containing multimodality treatment is the most important determinant for outcome in patients treated for locally recurrent rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:1937–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gosens MJ, Klaassen RA, Tan-Go I, et al. Circumferential margin involvement is the crucial prognostic factor after multimodality treatment in patients with locally advanced rectal carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:6617–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kusters M, Holman FA, Martijn H, et al. Patterns of local recurrence in locally advanced rectal cancer after intra-operative radiotherapy containing multimodality treatment. Radiother Oncol. 2009;92:221–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rutten HJ, Mannaerts GH, Martijn H, et al. Intraoperative radiotherapy for locally recurrent rectal cancer in The Netherlands. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2000;26(Suppl A):S16–20.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Quirke P, Dixon MF. The prediction of local recurrence in rectal adenocarcinoma by histopathological examination. Int J Colorectal Dis. 1988;3:127–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nagtegaal ID, Quirke P. What is the role for the circumferential margin in the modern treatment of rectal cancer? J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:303–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wittekind C, Compton C, Quirke P, et al. A uniform residual tumor (R) classification: integration of the R classification and the circumferential margin status. Cancer. 2009;115:3483–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Davies M, Harris D, Hirst G, et al. Local recurrence after abdomino-perineal resection. Colorectal Dis. 2009;11:39–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shihab OC, Heald RJ, Rullier E, et al. Defining the surgical planes on MRI improves surgery for cancer of the low rectum. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:1207–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bebenek M, Pudelko M, Cisarz K, et al. Therapeutic results in low-rectal cancer patients treated with abdominosacral resection are similar to those obtained by means of anterior resection in mid- and upper-rectal cancer cases. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007;33:320–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chuwa EW, Seow-Choen F. Outcomes for abdominoperineal resections are not worse than those of anterior resections. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;49:41–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kusters M, Valentini V, Calvo FA, et al. Results of European pooled analysis of IORT-containing multimodality treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer: adjuvant chemotherapy prevents local recurrence rather than distant metastases. Ann Oncol. 2010;21:1279–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Silberfein EJ, Kattepogu KM, Hu CY, et al. Long-term survival and recurrence outcomes following surgery for distal rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:2863–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Glimelius B, Holm T, Blomqvist L. Chemotherapy in addition to preoperative radiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer—a systematic overview. Rev Recent Clin Trials. 2008;3:204–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ingrid S. Martijnse
    • 1
  • Ralph L. Dudink
    • 1
  • Nicholas P. West
    • 2
  • Dareczka Wasowicz
    • 1
  • Grard A. Nieuwenhuijzen
    • 1
  • Ineke van Lijnschoten
    • 3
  • Hendrik Martijn
    • 4
  • Valery E. Lemmens
    • 5
  • Cornelis J. van de Velde
    • 6
  • Iris D. Nagtegaal
    • 7
  • Phil Quirke
    • 2
  • Harm J. Rutten
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Colorectal SurgeryCatharina HospitalEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Pathology and Tumour BiologyLeeds Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of LeedsLeedsUK
  3. 3.Pathology and Medical Microbiology InstitutePAMM EindhovenEindhovenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of RadiotherapyCatharina HospitalEindhovenThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of ResearchComprehensive Cancer Centre SouthEindhovenThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Department of SurgeryLeiden University Medical CenterLeidenThe Netherlands
  7. 7.Department of PathologyRadboud University Medical CenterNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations