Tumour, narrow pelvis and surgery specific factors for total mesorectal excision quality and morbidity following rectal cancer resection
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER:
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10674077 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6895431 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTransabdominal robotic surgery and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) are newly introduced strategies for rectal cancer. These procedures might have many advantages in rectal cancer treatment in terms of improving oncological and functional outcomes, especially in cases involving advanced cancer or technical difficulty. In the present study, we aimed to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of transabdominal robotic surgery and laparoscopic TaTME as a hybrid surgery for rectal cancer.Materials and methodsWe retrospectively evaluated six patients who underwent hybrid surgery for rectal cancer from August 2018 to April 2020. Both clinical and pathological outcomes were assessed.ResultsTwo patients showed circumferential margin involvement both before and after neoadjuvant therapy. Three patients were planned to undergo hybrid surgery with intersphincteric resection because of a narrow pelvis. One patient was planned to undergo hybrid surgery for a giant tumor of >10 cm. The median length of hospitalization was 17 days. No patients required conversion to an open procedure. All patients underwent formation of defunctioning ileostomies. Two patients had a stapled anastomosis and four had a hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis. Complications included one case of anastomotic leakage, which was managed conservatively with ultrasound- and computed tomography-guided drainage and antibiotics. Histological analysis revealed that all specimens had a negative radial margin and distal margin. The median number of lymph nodes harvested was 17.5. Two patients showed extensive lymph node metastases, including lateral node metastasis.ConclusionHybrid surgery was performed safely and may improve oncological outcomes for rectal cancer. This technique has many potential benefits and would be alternative option in multimodal strategies for rectal cancer.
| S-EPMC8519803 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Advances in the surgical management of rectal cancer have placed the quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) as the major predictor in overall survival. A standardized TME technique along with quality increases the percentage of patients undergoing a complete TME. Quality measurements of TME will place increasing demands on surgeons maintaining competence with present and future techniques. These efforts will improve the outcome of the rectal cancer patients.
| S-EPMC4336906 | biostudies-other
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10875406 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer.This is a retrospective study on a prospectively collected database containing 111 patients who underwent minimally invasive rectal resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) with curative intent between January 2008 and December 2014 (robot, n = 53; laparoscopy, n = 58). The patients all had a diagnosis of middle and low rectal adenocarcinoma with stage?I-III disease. The median follow-up period was 37.4 mo. Perioperative results, morbidity a pathological data were evaluated and compared. The 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were calculated and compared.Patients were comparable in terms of preoperative and demographic parameters. The median surgery time was 192 min for laparoscopic TME (L-TME) and 342 min for robotic TME (R-TME) (P < 0.001). There were no differences found in the rates of conversion to open surgery and morbidity. The patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery stayed in the hospital two days longer than the robotic group patients (8 d for L-TME and 6 d for R-TME, P < 0.001). The pathologic evaluation showed a higher number of harvested lymph nodes in the robotic group (18 for R-TME, 11 for L-TME, P < 0.001) and a shorter distal resection margin for laparoscopic patients (1.5 cm for L-TME, 2.5 cm for R-TME, P < 0.001). The three-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were similar between groups.Both L-TME and R-TME achieved acceptable clinical and oncologic outcomes. The robotic technique showed some advantages in rectal surgery that should be validated by further studies.
| S-EPMC4814646 | biostudies-other
Project description:The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors' suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice.Rectal cancer is a curable disease, yet curing the disease can be associated with lifelong morbidity because of the nature of the curative-intent treatment strategies. A major focus of modern prospective trials has been to maintain current cure rates, while minimizing lifelong lifestyle alterations and maximizing quality of life. Navigating the complex landscape of therapeutic options for rectal adenocarcinoma with a focus to accomplish this quality-of-life improvement is a critical focus area for future clinical trials. Many challenges remain on the path to optimizing cure and minimizing morbidity, and include improving initial staging accuracy, more precise selection of neoadjuvant therapy used for each patient, choosing the optimal surgical management strategy, and ensuring modern radiation therapy approaches are being used. Finally, organ preservation strategies have moved to the forefront in the management of both early and locally advanced rectal cancers and hold the potential for significant changes to come for patients with rectal cancer. Herein, we highlight some of the challenges remaining in the field, progress made, and how the recent data from the Canadian Cancer Trials Group phase II trial can be put into context with the ACOSOG Z6041, CARTS, and GRECCAR2 trials.
| S-EPMC9839271 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLaparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) are popular mid and low rectal cancer trends. However, there is currently no systematic comparison between LaTME and TaTME of mid and low rectal cancer. Therefore, we systematically study the perioperative and pathological outcomes of LaTME and TaTME in mid and low rectal cancer.MethodsArticles included searching through the Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, and Web of science for articles on LaTME and TaTME. We calculated pooled standard mean difference (SMD), relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The protocol for this review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022380067).ResultsThere are 8761 participants included in 33 articles. Compared with TaTME, patients who underwent LaTME had no statistical difference in operation time (OP), estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative hospital stay, over complications, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, anastomotic stenosis, wound infection, circumferential resection margin, distal resection margin, major low anterior resection syndrom, lymph node yield, loop ileostomy, and diverting ileostomy. There are similarities between LaTME and TaTME for 2-year DFS rate, 2-year OS rate, distant metastasis rat, and local recurrence rate. However, patients who underwent LaTME had less anastomotic leak rates (RR 0.82; 95% CI: 0.70-0.97; I2 = 10.6%, P = .019) but TaTME had less end colostomy (RR 1.96; 95% CI: 1.19-3.23; I2 = 0%, P = .008).ConclusionThis study comprehensively and systematically evaluated the differences in safety and effectiveness between LaTME and TaTME in the treatment of mid and low rectal cancer through meta-analysis. Patients who underwent LaTME had less anastomotic leak rate but TaTME had less end colostomy. There is no difference in other aspects. Of course, in the future, more scientific and rigorous conclusions need to be drawn from multi-center RCT research.
| S-EPMC10817019 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This pilot study aimed to develop a new technique, complete laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) with an intersphincteric resection (ISR) and coloplasty pouch anal anastomosis to avoid any further abdominal incision other than laparoscopic port sites, and to assess the impact on short-quality of life and oncological outcomes of this technique. After laparoscopic TME, large bowel was dissected at the level of the promontory. Then, laparoscopic construction of the coloplasty pouch was performed. Simultaneously, a rectal specimen with ISR was excised using the transanal approach. Coloplasty pouch was gently pulled from pelvic thorough anal and a hand-sewn coloplasty pouch anal anastomosis was created. We had performed 8 surgeries using the new technique. Though one patient developed pelvic infections, but intestinal continuity could be maintained and no local and distant recurrence was recognized in other patients. We foresee this novel approach to have significant clinical potential for lower rectal cancer patients with ISR.
| S-EPMC6768682 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) has recently emerged as a promising novel surgical procedure for rectal cancer. It is believed to hold the potential advantage of providing better access to mobilize the distal rectum and achieving better pathologic results. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of taTME for rectal cancer and summarize the preliminary experience in 10 Chinese hospitals. Methods:A total of 211 patients were enrolled in this study. Variables for evaluation of safety, feasibility, and oncologic outcomes were retrospectively collected and analysed. Results:The median distance between the tumor and the anal verge was 5.9?cm (range, 1.5-12?cm). The median operating time was 280?min (range, 70-600?min) and the median estimated intra-operative blood loss was 50?mL (range, 10-1,500?mL). The overall rate of complication was 27.9%. Among the 211 patients, 175 (82.9%) had complete TME and 33 (15.6%) had near complete TME. The circumferential resection margin was negative in 97.7% of patients. The patients were followed for a median of 35?months (range, 2-86?months). There was 7.6% (16) mortality, 6.2% (13) had local recurrence, and 12.8% (27) had systemic recurrence. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that 1-, 2-, and 3-year disease-free survival rates were 94.8%, 89.3%, and 80.2%, respectively, and 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates were 97.4%, 95.7%, and 92.9%, respectively. Conclusions:Although limited by its retrospective nature, taTME was safe and feasible in selected patients. Future work with rigorous data recording is warranted.
| S-EPMC7034231 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Minimally invasive total mesorectal excision (MiTME) and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) are popular trends in mid and low rectal cancer. However, there is currently no systematic comparison between MiTME and TaTME of mid and low-rectal cancer. Therefore, we systematically study the perioperative and pathological outcomes of MiTME and TaTME in mid and low rectal cancer. Methods We have searched the Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, and Web of Science for articles on MiTME (robotic or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision) and TaTME (transanal total mesorectal excision). We calculated pooled standard mean difference (SMD), relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The protocol for this review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022374141). Results There are 11010 patients including 39 articles. Compared with TaTME, patients who underwent MiTME had no statistical difference in operation time (SMD -0.14; CI -0.31 to 0.33; I2=84.7%, P=0.116), estimated blood loss (SMD 0.05; CI -0.05 to 0.14; I2=48%, P=0.338), postoperative hospital stay (RR 0.08; CI -0.07 to 0.22; I2=0%, P=0.308), over complications (RR 0.98; CI 0.88 to 1.08; I2=25.4%, P=0.644), intraoperative complications (RR 0.94; CI 0.69 to 1.29; I2=31.1%, P=0.712), postoperative complications (RR 0.98; CI 0.87 to 1.11; I2=16.1%, P=0.789), anastomotic stenosis (RR 0.85; CI 0.73 to 0.98; I2=7.4%, P=0.564), wound infection (RR 1.08; CI 0.65 to 1.81; I2=1.9%, P=0.755), circumferential resection margin (RR 1.10; CI 0.91 to 1.34; I2=0%, P=0.322), distal resection margin (RR 1.49; CI 0.73 to 3.05; I2=0%, P=0.272), major low anterior resection syndrome (RR 0.93; CI 0.79 to 1.10; I2=0%, P=0.386), lymph node yield (SMD 0.06; CI -0.04 to 0.17; I2=39.6%, P=0.249), 2-year DFS rate (RR 0.99; CI 0.88 to 1.11; I2=0%, P = 0.816), 2-year OS rate (RR 1.00; CI 0.90 to 1.11; I2=0%, P = 0.969), distant metastasis rate (RR 0.47; CI 0.17 to 1.29; I2=0%, P = 0.143), and local recurrence rate (RR 1.49; CI 0.75 to 2.97; I2=0%, P = 0.250). However, patients who underwent MiTME had fewer anastomotic leak rates (SMD -0.38; CI -0.59 to -0.17; I2=19.0%, P<0.0001). Conclusion This study comprehensively and systematically evaluated the safety and efficacy of MiTME and TaTME in the treatment of mid to low-rectal cancer through meta-analysis. There is no difference between the two except for patients with MiTME who have a lower anastomotic leakage rate, which provides some evidence-based reference for clinical practice. Of course, in the future, more scientific and rigorous conclusions need to be drawn from multi-center RCT research. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022374141.
| S-EPMC10291686 | biostudies-literature