Literature DB >> 3532972

An analysis of survival and treatment failure following abdominoperineal and sphincter-saving resection in Dukes' B and C rectal carcinoma. A report of the NSABP clinical trials. National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project.

N Wolmark, B Fisher.   

Abstract

Abdominoperineal resections for rectal carcinoma are being performed with decreasing frequency in favor of sphincter-saving resections. It remains, however, to be unequivocally demonstrated that sphincter preservation has not resulted in compromised local disease control, disease-free survival, and survival. Accordingly, it is the specific aim of this endeavor to compare local recurrence, disease-free survival, and survival in patients with Dukes' B and C rectal cancer undergoing curative abdominoperineal resection or sphincter-saving resection. For the purpose of this study, 232 patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection and 181 subjected to sphincter-saving resections were available for analysis from an NSABP randomized prospective clinical trial designed to ascertain the efficacy of adjuvant therapy in rectal carcinoma (protocol R-01). The mean time on study was 48 months. Analyses were carried out comparing the two operations according to Dukes' class, the number of positive nodes, and tumor size. The only significant differences in disease-free survival and survival were observed for the cohort characterized by greater than 4 positive nodes and were in favor of patients treated with sphincter-saving resections. A patient undergoing sphincter-saving resection was 0.62 times as likely to sustain a treatment failure as a similar patient undergoing abdominoperineal resection (p = 0.07) and 0.49 times as likely to die (p = 0.02). The inability to demonstrate an attenuated disease-free survival and survival for patients treated with sphincter-saving resection was in spite of an increased incidence of local recurrence (anastomotic and pelvic) observed for the latter operation when compared to abdominoperineal resection (13% vs. 5%). A similar analysis evaluating the length of margins of resection in patients undergoing sphincter-preserving operations indicated that treatment failure and survival were not significantly different in patients whose distal resection margins were less than 2 cm, 2-2.9 cm, or greater than or equal to 3 cm. If any trend was observed, it appeared that patients with smaller resection margins had a slightly prolonged survival (p = 0.10). This observation was present in spite of the fact that local recurrence as a first site of treatment failure was greater in the group with less than 2 cm that it was in the greater than or equal to 3 cm category, 22% versus 12%. This increased local recurrence rate in the population with smaller margins was not translated into an in crease in overall treatment failure and had absolutely no influence on survival. It is suggested that local recurrence serves as a marker of distant disease.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1986        PMID: 3532972      PMCID: PMC1251324          DOI: 10.1097/00000658-198610000-00016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  25 in total

1.  RESULTS OF LIGATION OF INFERIOR MESENTERIC ARTERY AT THE AORTA IN RESECTIONS OF CARCINOMA OF THE DESCENDING AND SIGMOID COLON AND RECTUM.

Authors:  R S GRINNELL
Journal:  Surg Gynecol Obstet       Date:  1965-05

2.  Five year survival after anterior resection for carcinoma of the rectum and rectosigmoid.

Authors:  C W MAYO; M Y LABERGE; W M HARDY
Journal:  Surg Gynecol Obstet       Date:  1958-06

3.  Anterior Resection for Malignant Lesions of the Upper Part of the Rectum and Lower Part of the Sigmoid.

Authors:  C F Dixon
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1948-09       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  The choice among anterior resection, the pull-through, and abdominoperineal resection of the rectum.

Authors:  M W Stearns
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1974-09       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  The prognostic value of the modifications of the Dukes' C class of colorectal cancer. An analysis of the NSABP clinical trials.

Authors:  N Wolmark; B Fisher; H S Wieand
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1986-02       Impact factor: 12.969

6.  Carcinoma of the rectum and the rectosigmoid. A review of 729 cases.

Authors:  R M Zollinger; M H Sheppard
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  1971-04

7.  Reappraisal of the 5 centimetre rule of distal excision for carcinoma of the rectum: a study of distal intramural spread and of patients' survival.

Authors:  N S Williams; M F Dixon; D Johnston
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 6.939

8.  Surgical treatment of rectal carcinoma: results of anterior resection vs. abdominoperineal resection at a community hospital.

Authors:  R J Strauss; M Friedman; N Platt; L Wise
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  1978 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.585

9.  Survival and recurrence after sphincter saving resection and abdominoperineal resection for carcinoma of the middle third of the rectum.

Authors:  N S Williams; D Johnston
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1984-04       Impact factor: 6.939

10.  The outcome following sphincter-saving resection and abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer.

Authors:  N S Williams; P Durdey; D Johnston
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1985-08       Impact factor: 6.939

View more
  34 in total

1.  Coloanal anastomosis after resection of low rectal cancer in the elderly.

Authors:  C Huguet; J Harb; S Bona
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  1990 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 2.  Anastomosis or stoma for low rectal cancer?

Authors:  C Hall; S Rowley; J P Neoptolemos
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 2.401

3.  Parasacral surgery for curative treatment of rectal cancer.

Authors:  A K Huber; M von Flue
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 4.  Personalized surgery for rectal tumours: the patient's opinion counts.

Authors:  R A Audisio; A Filiberti; J G Geraghty; B Andreoni
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 3.603

5.  An analysis of survival and treatment failure following abdominoperineal and sphincter-saving resection in Dukes' B and C rectal carcinoma.

Authors:  B A Portin
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1988-04       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 6.  Electrocoagulation for adenocarcinoma of the low rectum.

Authors:  T E Eisenstat; G C Oliver
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  1992 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 7.  Evolving treatment strategies for colorectal cancer: a critical review of current therapeutic options.

Authors:  Daniel C Damin; Anderson R Lazzaron
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-01-28       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 8.  Surgeon perspectives on the use and effects of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in the treatment of rectal cancer: a comprehensive review of the literature.

Authors:  Sami A Chadi; Marianna Berho; Steven D Wexner
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2015-08-07       Impact factor: 3.445

Review 9.  Survival and recurrence after low anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: the results of a long-term study with a review of the literature.

Authors:  M Konn; T Morita; R Hada; Y Yamanaka; M Sasaki; H Munakata; H Suzuki; S Inoue; M Endoh; Y Sugiyama
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 2.549

Review 10.  Distal dissection in total mesorectal excision, and preoperative chemoradiotherapy and lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer.

Authors:  Jin-ichi Hida; Kiyotaka Okuno; Tadao Tokoro
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2013-12-22       Impact factor: 2.549

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.