The radicality of surgical resection in rectal cancer.
Analysis of factors associated with incomplete mesorectal excision

Česká verzia

Authors: A. Ferko ¹; J. Örhalmi ¹; D. H. Nikolov ²; E. Hovorková ²; M. Chobola ¹; M. Vošmik ³ ; Eva Čermáková ⁴
Authors place of work: Chirurgická klinika, LF a FN Hradec Králové, přednosta: Prof. MUDr. A. Ferko, CSc. ¹; Fingerlandův ústav patologie, LF a FN Hradec Králové, přednosta: Prof. MUDr. A. Ryška, PhD. ²; Klinika onkologie a radioterapie, LF a FN Hradec Králové, přednosta: Prof. MUDr. J. Petera, PhD. ³; Oddělení výpočetní techniky, LF Hradec Králové, vedoucí: Ing. J. Šuplák ⁴
Published in the journal: Rozhl. Chir., 2013, roč. 92, č. 6, s. 304-310.
Category: Original articles

Podpořeno MZ ČR – RVO (FNHK, 00179906)

Summary

Introduction:
Circumferential resection margin (pCRM) and the completeness of mesorectal excision (ME) are two independent prognostic factors significantly associated with the radicality of surgical treatment. Positive pCRM and incomplete mesorectal excision are associated with a significantly higher incidence of local recurrence and worse patient prognosis. The aim of this article is to analyze the risk factors associated with incomplete mesorectal excision.

Material and methods:
Patients operated on at the Department of Surgery, University Hospital Hradec Kralove between January 2011 and February 2013 were included in the study. The patients’ data were prospectively collected and entered in the Dg C20 registry. The following factors were analyzed: sex, age, BMI, cN, pT, clinical stage, the involved segment of the rectum, neoadjuvant therapy, circumferential tumour location, the type of surgical approach and the type of surgery.

Results:
168 patients were operated on during the above period. 9 (5.3%) palliative stomas and 159 (94.6%) resection procedures were performed in this group of 168 patients. 7 (4.4%) patients were excluded because the quality of excision was not assessed in them. 114 (75%) resections, including 5 intersphincteric resections, were performed in the group of the remaining 152 patients. 10 (7%) were Hartmann’s procedures a 28 (18%) were amputation procedures. Out of 152 procedures, 69 (45%) were performed laparoscopically. Positive (y)pCRO was recorded in 26 (17%) patients, predominantly after abdominoperineal resection (APR) – 11 out of 27 (41%), and Hartmann’s operation – 6 out of 10 (60%).

Incomplete ME was observed in 45 patients (30%), complete ME in 81 patients (53%) and partially complete in 26 patients (17%). Univariate analysis confirmed statistically significant factors associated with incomplete mesorectal excision: (y)pT (P = 0.00027), type of surgery (P = 0.00001) and tumour location (P = 0.00001). Multivariate analysis then confirmed two independent prognostic factors associated with incomplete mesorectal excision. It was the location of the tumour in the distal third of the rectum and the (y)pT stage of the tumour.

Conclusion:
Distal rectum tumor location and higher (y)pT are associated with a higher risk of incomplete mesorectal excision with worse patient prognosis.

Key words:
total mesorectal excision – circumferential resection margin – rectal carcinoma – colorectal carcinoma

Zdroje

1. Birbeck KF, Macklin CP, Tiffin NJ, Parsons W, Dixon MF, Mapstone NP, Abbott CR, Scott N, Finan PJ, Johnston D, Quirke P. Rates of circumferential resection margin involvement vary between surgeons and predict outcomes in rectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg 2002;235:449–57.

2. Fukunaga Y, Higashino M, Tanimura S, Takemura M, Fujiwara Y. Laparoscopic rectal surgery for middle and lower rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 2010;24,1:145–51.

3. Glynne-Jones R, Mawdsley S, Novell JR. The clinical significance of the circumferential resection margin following preoperative pelvic chemo-radiotherapy in rectal cancer: why we need a common language. Colorectal Dis 2006;8,9:800–7.

4. Leonard D, Penninckx F, Fieuws S, Jouret-Mourin A, Sempoux C, Jehaes C, Van Eycken E. Factors predicting the quality of total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Ann Surg 2010;252, 6:982–8.

5. Lujan J, Valero G, Hernandez Q, Sanchez A, Frutos MD, Parrilla P. Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2009; 96,9:982–9.

6. 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.

7. Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJ, Marijnen CA, van Krieken JH, Quirke P. Low rectal cancer: a call for a change of approach in abdominoperineal resection. J Clin Oncol 2005;23,36:9257–64.

8. Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJ, van der Worp E, Kapiteijn E, Quirke P, van Krieken JH. Macroscopic evaluation of rectal cancer resection specimen: clinical significance of the pathologist in quality control. J Clin Oncol 2002;20,7:1729–34.

9. Quirke P, Durdey P, Dixon MF, Williams NS. Local recurrence of rectal adenocarcinoma due to inadequate surgical resection. Histopathological study of lateral tumour spread and surgical excision. Lancet 1986;2:996–9.

10. Quirke P, Steele R, Monson J, Grieve R, Khanna S, Couture J, OęCallaghan C, Myint AS, Bessell E, Thompson LC, Parmar M, Stephens RJ, Sebag-Montefiore D. 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; 373,9666:821–8.

11. Strohlein MA, Grutzner KU, Jauch KW, Heiss MM. Comparison of laparoscopic vs. open access surgery in patients with rectal cancer: a prospective analysis. Dis Colon Rektum 2008;51, 4:385–91.

12. West NP, Finan PJ, Anderin C, Lindholm J, Holm T, Quirke P. Evidence of the oncologic superiority of cylindrical abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008;26, 21:3517–22.