Literature DB >> 18541901

Evidence of the oncologic superiority of cylindrical abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer.

Nicholas P West1, Paul J Finan, Claes Anderin, Johan Lindholm, Torbjorn Holm, Philip Quirke.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Abdominoperineal excision (APE) of the rectum and anus for rectal cancer continues to have greater local recurrence and poorer survival than that seen following anterior resection. Changing to an extended prone perineal dissection results in a more cylindrical specimen and should improve outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty-eight specimens from patients who underwent APE that was performed for potentially curable primary rectal adenocarcinoma were dissected according to standard protocol in Leeds and Stockholm between 1997 and 2007 and were studied. Tissue morphometry was performed on the cross sectional photographs of 93 patient cases.
RESULTS: The cylindrical technique removed more tissue in the distal rectum and in all slices that contained tumor compared with the standard operation (both P < .0001). Greater distance was observed from the muscularis propria or internal sphincter to the anterior, posterior, and lateral resection margins (all P < .0001). This was associated with lower circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement (14.8% v 40.6%; P = .013) and intraoperative perforations (3.7% v 22.8%; P = .0255). An increase in the amount of tissue removed in the distal rectum (P < .0001) was demonstrated by a single surgeon who changed from the standard to the cylindrical technique during the study period; the change was associated with a reduction in CRM positivity (from 36.2% to 12.5%) and in perforations (from 12.8% to 0.0%).
CONCLUSION: Cylindrical APE performed in the prone position for low rectal cancer removes more tissue around the tumor that leads to a reduction in CRM involvement and intraoperative perforations, which should reduce local disease recurrence. The cylindrical technique has the potential to improve patient outcomes substantially if appropriate surgical education programs are developed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18541901     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.5961

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  91 in total

1.  Reconstruction of the irradiated extended abdominoperineal excision (APE) defect for locally advanced colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Mark A Boccola; Warren Matthew Rozen; Edmund W Ek; Damien Grinsell; Matthew A Croxford
Journal:  J Gastrointest Cancer       Date:  2011-03

2.  Laparoscopic extralevator abdominal perineal excision of the rectum: the best of both worlds.

Authors:  B Singh; G Lloyd; P J Nilsson; S Chaudhri
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2011-12-15       Impact factor: 3.781

3.  Current practice in abdominoperineal resection: an email survey of the membership of the Association of Coloproctology.

Authors:  N Dabbas; K Adams; H Chave; G Branagan
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 1.891

4.  A prospective case-control study of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) of the rectum versus conventional laparoscopic and open abdominoperineal excision: comparative analysis of short-term outcomes and quality of life.

Authors:  P G Vaughan-Shaw; T Cheung; J S Knight; P H Nichols; S A Pilkington; A H Mirnezami
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2012-07-10       Impact factor: 3.781

5.  Oncological outcome after incidental perforation in radical rectal cancer surgery.

Authors:  Fredrik Jörgren; Robert Johansson; Lena Damber; Gudrun Lindmark
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2010-03-27       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 6.  [Diagnosis and treatment of rectal cancer].

Authors:  Nicole Jacobi; Frank Gieseler
Journal:  Med Klin (Munich)       Date:  2010-10

7.  Biological mesh reconstruction of perineal wounds following enhanced abdominoperineal excision of rectum (APER).

Authors:  Oliver Peacock; H Pandya; T Sharp; N G Hurst; W J Speake; G M Tierney; J N Lund
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  What is the significance of the circumferential margin in locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy?

Authors:  Atthaphorn Trakarnsanga; Mithat Gonen; Jinru Shia; Karyn A Goodman; Garrett M Nash; Larissa K Temple; José G Guillem; Philip B Paty; Julio Garcia-Aguilar; Martin R Weiser
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2013-01-18       Impact factor: 5.344

9.  Short-term follow-up after laparoscopic versus conventional total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer in a large teaching hospital.

Authors:  A H W Schiphorst; A Doeksen; M E Hamaker; D D E Zimmerman; A Pronk
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2013-09-17       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 10.  Advances and challenges in treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer.

Authors:  J Joshua Smith; Julio Garcia-Aguilar
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-04-27       Impact factor: 44.544

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.