Literature DB >> 21340717

Evaluation of quality indicators following implementation of total mesorectal excision in primarily resected rectal cancer changed future management.

Paul M Schneider1, Daniel Vallbohmer, Yvonne Ploenes, Georg Lurje, Ralf Metzger, Frederike C Ling, Jan Brabender, Uta Drebber, Arnulf H Hoelscher.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We evaluated the outcome of primarily resected rectal cancer patients immediately after the implementation of total meserectal excision (TME) based on potential quality indicators. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Following initial teaching of two staff surgeons (PMS and AHH) by RJ Heald, 164 consecutive patients were analyzed. The following quality indicators were evaluated: (a) frequency of local recurrence, (b) number of resected lymph nodes, (c) selection of operative technique depending on tumor localization, (d) use of a protective loop ileostomy, and (e) frequency and type of adjuvant therapy.
RESULTS: Local recurrence rate was 8.5% after a minimum follow-up of 5 years. An increasing pT category (p < 0.02) and the presence of lymph node metastases (pN+, p < 0.05) were significantly associated with local recurrence rates. The number of resected lymph nodes was significantly associated with nodal metastases rate (p < 0.02). Patients with distal third rectal cancer underwent significantly more often an abdominoperineal amputation (p < 0.0001). Clinical course, but not the rate of anastomotic leakage (9.5%) itself was influenced by using a protective loop ileostomy. Forty-two (29.7%) patients received adjuvant therapy; however, local recurrence rate was higher in patients with adjuvant chemo-/radiotherapy (14.2% vs. 6.1%).
CONCLUSIONS: The local recurrence rate of 8.5% demonstrates that through consequent implementation of TME excellent onclogical results can be achieved. The number of resected lymph nodes significantly influenced the pN category. The primary construction of a protective loop ileostomy after TME became standard. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation was systematically introduced in order to improve local tumor control and prevent abdominoperineal amputations. No conclusions can be drawn concerning adjuvant therapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21340717     DOI: 10.1007/s00384-011-1155-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis        ISSN: 0179-1958            Impact factor:   2.571


  33 in total

1.  Effect of caseload on the short-term outcome of colon surgery: results of a multicenter study.

Authors:  F Marusch; A Koch; U Schmidt; R Zippel; M Lehmann; H D Czarnetzki; M Knoop; S Geissler; M Pross; I Gastinger; H Lippert
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Nationwide quality assurance of rectal cancer treatment.

Authors:  A Wibe; E Carlsen; O Dahl; K M Tveit; H Weedon-Fekjaer; U E Hestvik; J N Wiig
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 3.788

Review 3.  Time to locoregional recurrence after curative resection of rectal carcinoma is prolonged after neoadjuvant treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  S Merkel; U Mansmann; W Hohenberger; P Hermanek
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.788

4.  Abdominoperineal resection or anterior resection for rectal cancer: patient preferences before and after treatment.

Authors:  A Zolciak; K Bujko; L Kepka; J Oledzki; A Rutkowski; M P Nowacki
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 3.788

5.  Number of lymph nodes examined and its impact on colorectal cancer staging.

Authors:  Justin Kim; Richard Huynh; Iype Abraham; Eddie Kim; Ravin R Kumar
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 0.688

6.  Effect of a surgical training programme on outcome of rectal cancer in the County of Stockholm. Stockholm Colorectal Cancer Study Group, Basingstoke Bowel Cancer Research Project.

Authors:  A L Martling; T Holm; L E Rutqvist; B J Moran; R J Heald; B Cedemark
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2000-07-08       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 7.  Education is the key to quality of surgery for rectal cancer.

Authors:  L A Mack; W J Temple
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 4.424

8.  Mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

Authors:  J K MacFarlane; R D Ryall; R J Heald
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1993-02-20       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Total mesenteric excision in the surgical treatment of rectal cancer: a prospective study.

Authors:  R B Arenas; A Fichera; D Mhoon; F Michelassi
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  1998-06

10.  The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery--the clue to pelvic recurrence?

Authors:  R J Heald; E M Husband; R D Ryall
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1982-10       Impact factor: 6.939

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS): cause and effect and reconstructive considerations.

Authors:  Y Ziv; A Zbar; Y Bar-Shavit; I Igov
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2012-10-18       Impact factor: 3.781

Review 2.  Laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision: West meets East.

Authors:  Carina F K Chow; Seon Hahn Kim
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-10-21       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Higher risk of incomplete mesorectal excision and positive circumferential margin in low rectal cancer regardless of surgical technique.

Authors:  Alexander Ferko; Julius Orhalmi; Tomas Dusek; Milan Chobola; Eva Hovorkova; Dimitar Hadzi Nikolov
Journal:  Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne       Date:  2014-10-07       Impact factor: 1.195

4.  Quality indicators of clinical cancer care (QC3) in colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Valentina Bianchi; Alessandra Spitale; Laura Ortelli; Luca Mazzucchelli; Andrea Bordoni
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-07-17       Impact factor: 2.692

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.