F H Remzi1, M Preen. 1. Department of Colorectal Surgery A30, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. Remzi@CCF.org
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the incidence of coexisting colorectal cancer in ulcerative colitis in a population of patients undergoing ileal pouch anal anastomosis. The frequency of rectal cancer in this population, surgical intervention, general outcomes and cancer recurrence are described. METHODS: Data on 1850 patients undergoing restorative proctocolectomy from 1983 to 2001 were reviewed. Information was gathered from data in the department's pelvic pouch database, as well as pathology and surgical reports. Follow-up questionnaires routinely sent to patients as part of the database were included in the analysis to determine current functional status. Mean follow-up period was 7.5 years after surgery. RESULTS: Seventy patients had coexisting colorectal cancer at time of IPAA. 7 (10%) of cancers were incidental. Pre-operative duration of disease was 18.6 years. Twenty-six of the cancers were rectal cancers. The most common form of anastomosis in the rectal cancers was mucosectomy, especially in pre-operatively known rectal cancer or low lying dysplasia. Preferred surgical technique for rectal cancer in mucosal ulcerative colitis (UC) included high ligation of mesenteric vessels with radical colectomy and taped occlusion of the rectum with irrigation of the rectal stump with Turnbull solution prior to mucosectomy. Patients with Stage 3 cancers received postoperative chemotherapy. Post-operative radiation therapy was not commonly recommended. Five of 70 patients were deceased from metastatic colon cancer; 55 patients were confirmed alive with good to excellent pouch function with a follow-up range of 1-17 years. CONCLUSION: Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis is a successful surgical approach for patients with coexisting colorectal cancer in UC. When the appropriate surgical technique is used in patients with colon or rectal cancer, along with adjuvant chemotherapy when appropriate, prognosis and function is very good.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the incidence of coexisting colorectal cancer in ulcerative colitis in a population of patients undergoing ileal pouch anal anastomosis. The frequency of rectal cancer in this population, surgical intervention, general outcomes and cancer recurrence are described. METHODS: Data on 1850 patients undergoing restorative proctocolectomy from 1983 to 2001 were reviewed. Information was gathered from data in the department's pelvic pouch database, as well as pathology and surgical reports. Follow-up questionnaires routinely sent to patients as part of the database were included in the analysis to determine current functional status. Mean follow-up period was 7.5 years after surgery. RESULTS: Seventy patients had coexisting colorectal cancer at time of IPAA. 7 (10%) of cancers were incidental. Pre-operative duration of disease was 18.6 years. Twenty-six of the cancers were rectal cancers. The most common form of anastomosis in the rectal cancers was mucosectomy, especially in pre-operatively known rectal cancer or low lying dysplasia. Preferred surgical technique for rectal cancer in mucosal ulcerative colitis (UC) included high ligation of mesenteric vessels with radical colectomy and taped occlusion of the rectum with irrigation of the rectal stump with Turnbull solution prior to mucosectomy. Patients with Stage 3 cancers received postoperative chemotherapy. Post-operative radiation therapy was not commonly recommended. Five of 70 patients were deceased from metastatic colon cancer; 55 patients were confirmed alive with good to excellent pouch function with a follow-up range of 1-17 years. CONCLUSION: Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis is a successful surgical approach for patients with coexisting colorectal cancer in UC. When the appropriate surgical technique is used in patients with colon or rectal cancer, along with adjuvant chemotherapy when appropriate, prognosis and function is very good.
Authors: Ryan Snelgrove; Carl J Brown; Brenda I O'Connor; Harden Huang; J Charles Victor; Robert Gryfe; Helen MacRae; Zane Cohen; Robin S McLeod Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2014-10-17 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: G Pellino; D S Keller; G M Sampietro; M Carvello; V Celentano; C Coco; F Colombo; A Geccherle; G Luglio; M Rottoli; M Scarpa; G Sciaudone; G Sica; L Sofo; R Zinicola; S Leone; S Danese; A Spinelli; G Delaini; F Selvaggi Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2020-03-02 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Bruno Sensi; Giulia Bagaglini; Vittoria Bellato; Daniele Cerbo; Andrea Martina Guida; Jim Khan; Yves Panis; Luca Savino; Leandro Siragusa; Giuseppe S Sica Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 6.639