Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 822–828 | Cite as

An MRI-based Assessment of Standard and Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision Specimens: Time for a Patient Tailored Approach?

  • Peter HowEmail author
  • Nicholas P. West
  • G. Brown
Colorectal Cancer

Abstract

Background

The extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) has been proposed as oncologically superior to standard abdominoperineal excision (SAPE). However, little is known regarding comparative margins achieved in ELAPE and SAPE. The purpose of this study was to compare patterns of tissue removal between these two groups that can aid patient selection.

Methods

Twenty APE specimens, comprising 10 SAPEs and 10 ELAPEs, were selected randomly from a single UK centre. Transverse slices of pathological specimens were matched to corresponding axial MRI images obtained from conventional pelvic MRI imaging. Measurements from the muscularis propria to the resection margin [muscularis to margin (MTM) distance] were recorded by height (from anal verge) and quadrant for each surgical group. MTM distances achieved on histopathological assessment were also compared to MRI assessed distances necessary to achieve a clear CRM.

Results

ELAPE specimens had a greater mean MTM distance than for SAPE (7.75 vs. 5.61 mm, p = 0.02). ELAPE had significantly greater MTM distances in lateral and posterior quadrants (p < 0.05) than SAPE at 30–49 mm. There was no significant difference in mean anterior distances (1.57 vs. 1.16 mm, p = 0.507) with the smallest difference at a height of 60–69 mm. Two (2 %) of pathological MTM distances within ELAPE group failed to achieve the minimum MRI assessed distance compared with 30 (23 %) in the SAPE group, which had higher CRM positivity.

Conclusions

ELAPE appears to confer oncological benefit over SAPE but with notable exceptions, including tumours located above and below the puborectalis sling and anteriorly at the level of prostate where exenteration may be more appropriate.

Keywords

Total Mesorectal Excision Anal Verge Circumferential Resection Margin Abdominoperineal Excision Radial Margin 
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

Commercial Interests

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Thorpe H, Quirke P, Copeland J, Smith AMH, Heath RM, Brown JM. Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(21):3061-8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJH, Marijnen CAM, van Krieken JHJM, Quirke P. Low rectal cancer: a call for a change of approach in abdominoperineal resection. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(36):9257-64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nagtegaal ID, Quirke P. What is the role for the circumferential margin in the modern treatment of rectal cancer? J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(2):303-12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marr R, Birbeck K, et al. The modern abdominoperineal excision: the next challenge after total mesorectal excision. Ann Surg. 2005;242(1):74-82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Salerno G, Chandler I, Wotherspoon A, Thomas K, Moran B, Brown G. Sites of surgical wasting in the abdominoperineal specimen. Br J Surg. 2008;95(9):1147-54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miles E. A method of performing abdominoperineal excision for carcinoma of the rectum and of the terminal portion of the pelvic colon. Lancet. 1908;2:1812-1813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    West NP, Finan PJ, et al. Evidence of the oncologic superiority of cylindrical abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(21):3517–3522.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    West NP, Anderin C, et al. Multicentre experience with extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2010;97(4):588-99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;327:307–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shihab OC, Taylor F, Salerno G, Heald RJ, Quirke P, Moran BJ, Brown G. MRI predictive factors for long-term outcomes of low rectal tumours. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(12):3278-84. Epub 2011 May 18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shihab OC, Brown G, Daniels IR, Heald RJ, Quirke P, Moran BJ. Patients with low rectal cancer treated by abdominoperineal excision have worse tumours and higher involved margin rates compared with patients treated by anterior resection. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53(3):251-256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nagtegaal ID, Cornelius JH, et al. Low rectal cancer: a call for a change of approach in abdominoperineal resection. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(36):9257-64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mathis KL, Larson DW, et al. Outcomes following surgery without radiotherapy for rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2012;99(1):137-43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Messenger DE, Cohen Z, et al. Favorable pathologic and long-term outcomes from the conventional approach to abdominoperineal resection. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:793-802.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Royal Marsden HospitalLondonUK
  2. 2.Leeds General InfirmaryLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations