PURPOSE: The oncological superiority, i.e., lower circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement, lower intraoperative perforation (IOP), and local recurrence (LR) rates, of extralevator abdominoperineal resection (EAPR) over conventional abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer is inconclusive. This meta-analysis systematically compared the rates of CRM involvement, IOP, and LR of rectal cancer patients treated by EAPR and APR, respectively. METHODS: An electronic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library through May 2013 was performed by two investigators independently to identify studies evaluating the CRM involvement, IOP, and LR rates of EAPR and APR, and search results were cross-checked to reach a consensus. Data was extracted accordingly. A Mantel-Haenszel random effects model was used to calculate the odds ratio (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI). RESULTS: Six studies with a total of 881 patients were included. Meta-analysis of CRM involvement and IOP data from all six studies demonstrated significant lower CRM involvement (OR, 0.36; 95%CI, 0.23-0.58; P < 0.0001) and IOP (OR, 0.31; 95%CI, 0.12-0.80; P = 0.02) rates of EAPR. Data from four studies also showed that EAPR was associated with a lower LR rate than APR (OR, 0.27; 95%CI, 0.08-0.95; P = 0.04). No differences of between-study heterogeneity or publication bias were seen in any of the meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Extralevator abdominoperineal resection could achieve better CRM involvement outcome and lower IOP and LR rates, demonstrating an oncological superiority over conventional abdominoperineal resection.
PURPOSE: The oncological superiority, i.e., lower circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement, lower intraoperative perforation (IOP), and local recurrence (LR) rates, of extralevator abdominoperineal resection (EAPR) over conventional abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer is inconclusive. This meta-analysis systematically compared the rates of CRM involvement, IOP, and LR of rectal cancerpatients treated by EAPR and APR, respectively. METHODS: An electronic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library through May 2013 was performed by two investigators independently to identify studies evaluating the CRM involvement, IOP, and LR rates of EAPR and APR, and search results were cross-checked to reach a consensus. Data was extracted accordingly. A Mantel-Haenszel random effects model was used to calculate the odds ratio (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI). RESULTS: Six studies with a total of 881 patients were included. Meta-analysis of CRM involvement and IOP data from all six studies demonstrated significant lower CRM involvement (OR, 0.36; 95%CI, 0.23-0.58; P < 0.0001) and IOP (OR, 0.31; 95%CI, 0.12-0.80; P = 0.02) rates of EAPR. Data from four studies also showed that EAPR was associated with a lower LR rate than APR (OR, 0.27; 95%CI, 0.08-0.95; P = 0.04). No differences of between-study heterogeneity or publication bias were seen in any of the meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Extralevator abdominoperineal resection could achieve better CRM involvement outcome and lower IOP and LR rates, demonstrating an oncological superiority over conventional abdominoperineal resection.
Authors: N A Janjan; V S Khoo; J Abbruzzese; R Pazdur; R Dubrow; K R Cleary; P K Allen; P M Lynch; G Glober; R Wolff; T A Rich; J Skibber Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1999-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Christian Wittekind; Carolyn Compton; Phil Quirke; Iris Nagtegaal; Susanne Merkel; Paul Hermanek; Leslie H Sobin Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-08-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Angelita Habr-Gama; Guilherme P São Julião; Adrian Mattacheo; Luiz Felipe de Campos-Lobato; Edgar Aleman; Bruna B Vailati; Joaquim Gama-Rodrigues; Rodrigo Oliva Perez Journal: World J Surg Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: D L H Baird; C Simillis; C Kontovounisios; Q Sheng; S Nikolaou; W L Law; S Rasheed; P P Tekkis Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2017-09-11 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Adam Dinnewitzer; Matthias Meissnitzer; Thomas Meissnitzer; Clemens Nawara; Christoph Augschöll; Selina Buchner; Franz Mayer; Dietmar Öfner Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2015-02-21 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Minna Räsänen; Monika Carpelan-Holmström; Harri Mustonen; Laura Renkonen-Sinisalo; Anna Lepistö Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2015-03-22 Impact factor: 2.571