Literature DB >> 22038306

Quality of surgical care, local recurrence, and survival in patients with low- and midrectal cancers following multimodal therapy.

Ilmo Kellokumpu1, Jaana Vironen, Matti Kairaluoma, Ismo Jantunen, Hannu Kautiainen, Kyösti Nuorva.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the quality of surgical care and outcome following multimodal treatment for low- and midrectal cancers, focusing on differences between low anterior and abdominoperineal resections.
METHODS: From 1999 to 2007, 179 patients underwent low anterior resection (LAR), abdominoperineal resection (APR), or proctocolectomy for low- or midrectal cancers. Preoperative (chemo)radiotherapy was given according to local guidelines and adjuvant postoperative chemotherapy in stage III disease. Outcome together with clinical and histopathological data were analyzed in relation to the type of surgery performed.
RESULTS: The postoperative mortality was 2.2%; morbidity, 39.6%; reoperation rate, 8.4%; and readmission rate, 16.0%. Involved circumferential resection margin (CRM ≤ 1 mm) rate was 4.5% (APR 9.1% vs. LAR 2.6%, p = 0.046). Intraoperative bowel perforation occurred in 5.5% of APRs. Anastomotic leak rate was 15.3%. The 5-year overall survival of the 179 patients was 68.5 %; disease-specific survival, 82.2%; and local recurrence rate, 6.3%. The overall, disease-specific, and disease-free survival rates in the 162 patients treated for cure were 73.1%, 84.6%, and 78.3%, and local recurrence rate was 4.4% with no significant differences between LAR and APR. CRM was the only independent predictor of local recurrence and CRM, tumor stage, and level independent predictors of disease-free survival.
CONCLUSIONS: Quality of surgical care was in line with the current international standards. CRM was an independent predictor for local recurrence and CRM, tumor stage, and level independent prognostic factors for disease-free survival. Neither the type of surgery (LAR vs. APR) nor the surgical approach (laparoscopic vs. open) influenced the oncologic outcome.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22038306     DOI: 10.1007/s00384-011-1322-5

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


  33 in total

1.  Five-year follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of laparoscopically assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  D G Jayne; H C Thorpe; J Copeland; P Quirke; J M Brown; P J Guillou
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 6.939

2.  Marked improvements in survival of patients with rectal cancer in the Netherlands following changes in therapy, 1989-2006.

Authors:  M A G Elferink; L N van Steenbergen; P Krijnen; V E P P Lemmens; H J Rutten; C A M Marijnen; I D Nagtegaal; H E Karim-Kos; E de Vries; S Siesling
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2010-02-19       Impact factor: 9.162

3.  Sites of surgical wasting in the abdominoperineal specimen.

Authors:  G Salerno; I Chandler; A Wotherspoon; K Thomas; B Moran; G Brown
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 6.939

4.  Low rectal cancer: a call for a change of approach in abdominoperineal resection.

Authors:  Iris D Nagtegaal; Cornelius J H van de Velde; Corrie A M Marijnen; Jan H J M van Krieken; Philip Quirke
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-12-20       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  The impact of hospital volume on surgical outcome in patients with rectal cancer.

Authors:  Marit Kressner; Måns Bohe; Björn Cedermark; Michael Dahlberg; Lena Damber; Gudrun Lindmark; Björn Ojerskog; Rune Sjödahl; Robert Johansson; Lars Påhlman
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 4.585

6.  A population-based study on outcome in relation to the type of resection in low rectal cancer.

Authors:  Claes Anderin; Anna Martling; Henrick Hellborg; Torbjörn Holm
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 4.585

Review 7.  The influence on treatment outcome of structuring rectal cancer care.

Authors:  L Påhlman; U Gunnarsson; U Karlbom
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 4.424

8.  Impact of functional results on quality of life after rectal cancer surgery.

Authors:  Jaana H Vironen; Matti Kairaluoma; Anna-Mari Aalto; Ilmo H Kellokumpu
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 4.585

9.  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

10.  The TME trial after a median follow-up of 6 years: increased local control but no survival benefit in irradiated patients with resectable rectal carcinoma.

Authors:  Koen C M J Peeters; Corrie A M Marijnen; Iris D Nagtegaal; Elma Klein Kranenbarg; Hein Putter; Theo Wiggers; Harm Rutten; Lars Pahlman; Bengt Glimelius; Jan Willem Leer; Cornelis J H van de Velde
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 12.969

View more
  2 in total

1.  The Effect of Laparoscopic Technique on the Surgical Outcome of Colorectal Cancer in a Small-Volume Rural Finnish Lapland Central Hospital.

Authors:  Jukka M Rintala; Pirita R Tahvonen; Saija T Vuolio; Ilpo T Typpö; Kai A Suokanerva; Heikki I Huhta
Journal:  Gastrointest Tumors       Date:  2020-11-18

2.  Abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: is the pelvic drain externalization site an independent risk factor for perineal wound healing?

Authors:  M G Pramateftakis; D Raptis; D Kanellos; E Christoforidis; G Tsoulfas; I Kanellos; Ch Lazaridis
Journal:  Int J Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-03-06
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.