Marco E Allaix1, Alberto Arezzo2, Mario Morino2. 1. Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Torino, Corso A. M. Dogliotti, 14, 10126, Turin, Italy. meallaix@gmail.com. 2. Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Torino, Corso A. M. Dogliotti, 14, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The last three decades have witnessed significant improvements in the diagnosis, staging and treatment of rectal cancer leading to a more tailored approach. One of the most clinically relevant advances in this field is represented by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). Several studies have investigated its role in the treatment of rectal cancer. However, evidence-based recommendations are limited. The aim of this report is to provide an evidence-based review of current indications, controversies and future perspectives of TEM in the management of rectal cancer. METHODS: A review of the literature has been performed in PubMed/Medline electronic databases and the Cochrane Library. Quality of evidence was evaluated according to the GRADE system. RESULTS: TEM allows to perform a more accurate en bloc full-thickness local excision of rectal tumors than transanal excision. TEM alone seems to provide similar oncologic results in selected T1sm1 N0 rectal cancers to those achieved by rectal resection and total mesorectal excision (TME), without impairing anorectal function. The oncologic outcomes of neoadjuvant therapy followed by TEM for selected T2 N0 rectal cancers are promising, but this approach is still under evaluation. A word of caution comes from the increased rate of suture dehiscence and rectal pain after TEM. TEM is a promising tool for the surgical treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer as a platform for transanal TME. CONCLUSIONS: Selected T1 rectal cancers with favorable features may be effectively treated with TEM without jeopardizing long-term oncologic outcomes. The lack of adequate lymphadenectomy represents the main concern of this approach for the treatment of rectal cancer. Several approaches are under evaluation to overcome this limitation.
BACKGROUND: The last three decades have witnessed significant improvements in the diagnosis, staging and treatment of rectal cancer leading to a more tailored approach. One of the most clinically relevant advances in this field is represented by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). Several studies have investigated its role in the treatment of rectal cancer. However, evidence-based recommendations are limited. The aim of this report is to provide an evidence-based review of current indications, controversies and future perspectives of TEM in the management of rectal cancer. METHODS: A review of the literature has been performed in PubMed/Medline electronic databases and the Cochrane Library. Quality of evidence was evaluated according to the GRADE system. RESULTS: TEM allows to perform a more accurate en bloc full-thickness local excision of rectal tumors than transanal excision. TEM alone seems to provide similar oncologic results in selected T1sm1 N0 rectal cancers to those achieved by rectal resection and total mesorectal excision (TME), without impairing anorectal function. The oncologic outcomes of neoadjuvant therapy followed by TEM for selected T2 N0 rectal cancers are promising, but this approach is still under evaluation. A word of caution comes from the increased rate of suture dehiscence and rectal pain after TEM. TEM is a promising tool for the surgical treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer as a platform for transanal TME. CONCLUSIONS: Selected T1 rectal cancers with favorable features may be effectively treated with TEM without jeopardizing long-term oncologic outcomes. The lack of adequate lymphadenectomy represents the main concern of this approach for the treatment of rectal cancer. Several approaches are under evaluation to overcome this limitation.
Authors: Dieter Hahnloser; Bruce G Wolff; David W Larson; Jennifer Ping; Santhat Nivatvongs Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Marco E Allaix; Alberto Arezzo; Simone Arolfo; Mario Caldart; Fabrizio Rebecchi; Mario Morino Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2012-10-24 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Mario Morino; Mauro Risio; Simon Bach; Regina Beets-Tan; Krzysztof Bujko; Yves Panis; Philip Quirke; Bjorn Rembacken; Eric Rullier; Yutaka Saito; Tonia Young-Fadok; Marco Ettore Allaix Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Seong-A Jeong; In Ja Park; Seung Mo Hong; Jun Woo Bong; Hye Yoon Choi; Ji Hyun Seo; Hyong Eun Kim; Seok-Byung Lim; Chang Sik Yu; Jin Cheon Kim Journal: Ann Surg Treat Res Date: 2018-01-30 Impact factor: 1.859
Authors: D M Le; S Ahmed; S Ahmed; B Brunet; J Davies; C Doll; M Ferguson; N Ginther; V Gordon; T Hamilton; P Hebbard; R Helewa; C A Kim; R Lee-Ying; H Lim; J M Loree; J P McGhie; K Mulder; J Park; D Renouf; R P W Wong; A Zaidi; T Asif Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Emmanouil Fokas; Ane Appelt; Alexandra Gilbert; David Sebag-Montefiore; Claus Rödel; Robert Glynne-Jones; Geerard Beets; Rodrigo Perez; Julio Garcia-Aguilar; Eric Rullier; J Joshua Smith; Corrie Marijnen; Femke P Peters; Maxine van der Valk; Regina Beets-Tan; Arthur S Myint; Jean-Pierre Gerard; Simon P Bach; Michael Ghadimi; Ralf D Hofheinz; Krzysztof Bujko; Cihan Gani; Karin Haustermans; Bruce D Minsky; Ethan Ludmir; Nicholas P West; Maria A Gambacorta; Vincenzo Valentini; Marc Buyse; Andrew G Renehan Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2021-08-04 Impact factor: 66.675