Nicoline van Leersum1, Ingrid Martijnse, Marcel den Dulk, Nikki Kolfschoten, Saskia Le Cessie, Cornelius van de Velde, Rob Tollenaar, Michel Wouters, Harm J Rutten. 1. *Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands †Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands ‡Departments of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Statistics and Bioinformatics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands §Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands ¶Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the abdominoperineal excision (APE) is associated with an increased risk of circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement after rectal cancer surgery in comparison with low anterior resection (LAR). BACKGROUND: The oncologic inferiority of the APE technique in comparison with LAR has been widely reported in literature. However, because of large evolvement in rectal cancer care, outcomes after APE may have improved since then. METHODS: The population-based dataset of the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit was used selecting 5017 patients with primary rectal cancer undergoing surgery in 2010 to 2011. Propensity scores were calculated for the likelihood of performing an APE given relevant patient and tumor characteristics, and used in the multivariate analysis of CRM involvement. RESULTS: The APE was associated with a slight, nonsignificant, increased risk of CRM involvement [odds ratio (OR) = 1.33; confidence interval (CI) = 0.93-1.90]. Absolute percentages of CRM involvement were 8% and 12% after LAR and APE, respectively.In the subgroup analysis, advanced rectal tumors (cT3-4) were associated to a higher risk of CRM involvement after APE (OR = 1.61; CI = 1.05-1.90), whereas smaller tumors (cT1-2) were not (OR = 0.62; CI = 0.27-1.40). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that on a national level the APE procedure itself is not a strong predictor anymore for CRM involvement after rectal cancer surgery. However, in advanced tumors, results after APE are inferior to LAR.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the abdominoperineal excision (APE) is associated with an increased risk of circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement after rectal cancer surgery in comparison with low anterior resection (LAR). BACKGROUND: The oncologic inferiority of the APE technique in comparison with LAR has been widely reported in literature. However, because of large evolvement in rectal cancer care, outcomes after APE may have improved since then. METHODS: The population-based dataset of the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit was used selecting 5017 patients with primary rectal cancer undergoing surgery in 2010 to 2011. Propensity scores were calculated for the likelihood of performing an APE given relevant patient and tumor characteristics, and used in the multivariate analysis of CRM involvement. RESULTS: The APE was associated with a slight, nonsignificant, increased risk of CRM involvement [odds ratio (OR) = 1.33; confidence interval (CI) = 0.93-1.90]. Absolute percentages of CRM involvement were 8% and 12% after LAR and APE, respectively.In the subgroup analysis, advanced rectal tumors (cT3-4) were associated to a higher risk of CRM involvement after APE (OR = 1.61; CI = 1.05-1.90), whereas smaller tumors (cT1-2) were not (OR = 0.62; CI = 0.27-1.40). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that on a national level the APE procedure itself is not a strong predictor anymore for CRM involvement after rectal cancer surgery. However, in advanced tumors, results after APE are inferior to LAR.
Authors: Alexander T Hawkins; Katherine Albutt; Paul E Wise; Karim Alavi; Ranjan Sudan; Andreas M Kaiser; Liliana Bordeianou Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2018-04-16 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Liliana Bordeianou; Lillias Holmes Maguire; Karim Alavi; Ranjan Sudan; Paul E Wise; Andreas M Kaiser Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2014-05-13 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Martijn W J Stommel; Johannes H W de Wilt; Richard P G ten Broek; Chema Strik; Maroeska M Rovers; Harry van Goor Journal: World J Surg Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: In Ja Park; Chang Sik Yu; Seok-Byung Lim; Jong Lyul Lee; Chan Wook Kim; Yong Sik Yoon; Seong Ho Park; Jin Cheon Kim Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 1.889