A Systematic Review to Assess Resection Margin Status After Abdominoperineal Excision and Pelvic Exenteration for Rectal Cancer

被引:63
作者
Simillis, Constantinos [1 ,2 ]
Baird, Daniel L. H. [1 ,2 ]
Kontovounisios, Christos [1 ,2 ]
Pawa, Nikhil [1 ]
Brown, Gina [3 ]
Rasheed, Shahnawaz [1 ,2 ]
Tekkis, Paris P. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Royal Marsden Hosp, Chelsea & Westminster Hosp, Dept Colorectal Surg, London, England
[2] Imperial Coll, Dept Colorectal Surg, London, England
[3] Royal Marsden Hosp, Dept Radiol, London, England
关键词
abdominoperineal excision; pelvic exenteration; rectal cancer; resection margin; survival; systematic review; TOTAL MESORECTAL EXCISION; LOCAL RECURRENCE; CIRCUMFERENTIAL MARGIN; ANTERIOR RESECTION; SURGICAL RESECTION; RADICAL RESECTION; SURGERY; SURVIVAL; METAANALYSIS; MANAGEMENT;
D O I
10.1097/SLA.0000000000001963
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: The aim of this study was to assess resection margin status and its impact on survival after abdominoperineal excision and pelvic exenteration for primary or recurrent rectal cancer. Summary of Background Data: Resection margin is important to guide therapy and to evaluate patient prognosis. Methods: A meta-analysis was performed to assess the impact of resection margin status on survival, and a regression analysis to analyze positive resection margin rates reported in the literature. Results: The analysis included 111 studies reporting on 19,607 participants after abdominoperineal excision, and 30 studies reporting on 1326 participants after pelvic exenteration. The positive resection margin rates for abdominoperineal excision were 14.7% and 24.0% for pelvic exenteration. The overall survival and disease-free survival rates were significantly worse for patients with positive compared with negative resection margins after abdominoperineal excision [hazard ratio (HR) 2.64, P < 0.01; HR 3.70, P < 0.01, respectively] and after pelvic exenteration (HR 2.23, P < 0.01; HR 2.93, P < 0.01, respectively). For patients undergoing abdominoperineal excision with positive resection margins, the reported tumor sites were 57% anterior, 15% posterior, 10% left or right lateral, 8% circumferential, 10% unspecified. A significant decrease in positive resection margin rates was identified over time for abdominoperineal excision. Although positive resection margin rates did not significantly change with the size of the study, some small size studies reported higher than expected positive resection margin rates. Conclusions: Resection margin status influences survival and a multidisciplinary approach in experienced centers may result in reduced positive resection margins. For advanced anterior rectal cancer, posterior pelvic exenteration instead of abdominoperineal excision may improve resection margins.
引用
收藏
页码:291 / 299
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Patient-reported outcomes after pelvic exenteration for colorectal cancer: A systematic review
    Denys, Andreas
    van Nieuwenhove, Yves
    Van de Putte, Dirk
    Pape, Eva
    Pattyn, Piet
    Ceelen, Wim
    van Ramshorst, Gabrielle H.
    COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2022, 24 (04) : 353 - 368
  • [22] Extralevator vs conventional abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer-A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Negoi, Ionut
    Hostiuc, Sorin
    Paun, Sorin
    Negoi, Ruxandra I.
    Beuran, Mircea
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2016, 212 (03) : 511 - 526
  • [23] Oncological outcomes before and after the extralevator abdominoperineal excision era in rectal cancer patients treated with abdominoperineal excision in a single centre, high volume unit
    Lehtonen, T.
    Rasanen, M.
    Carpelan-Holmstrom, M.
    Lepisto, A.
    COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2019, 21 (02) : 183 - 190
  • [24] The adequacy of the distal resection margin after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer
    Kim, T. G.
    Park, W.
    Choi, D. H.
    Kim, S. -H.
    Kim, H. C.
    Lee, W. Y.
    Park, J. O.
    Park, Y. S.
    COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2014, 16 (08) : O257 - O263
  • [25] Association of Surgical Approaches and Outcomes in Total Mesorectal Excision and Margin Status for Rectal Cancer
    Mirza, Muhammad Bilal
    Gamboa, Adriana C.
    Irlmeier, Rebecca
    Hopkins, Benjamin
    Regenbogen, Scott E.
    Hrebinko, Katherine A.
    Holder-Murray, Jennifer
    Wiseman, Jason T.
    Ejaz, Aslam
    Wise, Paul E.
    Ye, Fei
    Idrees, Kamran
    Hawkins, Alexander T.
    Balch, Glen C.
    Khan, Aimal
    JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH, 2024, 300 : 494 - 502
  • [26] A comparison of published rates of resection margin involvement and intra-operative perforation between standard and 'cylindrical' abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer
    Krishna, A.
    Rickard, M. J. F. X.
    Keshava, A.
    Dent, O. F.
    Chapuis, P. H.
    COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2013, 15 (01) : 57 - 65
  • [27] Treatment outcomes of patients with involved resection margin after rectal cancer surgery: A nationwide population-based cohort study in South Korea
    Bong, Jun Woo
    Lee, Jung Ae
    Ju, Yeonuk
    Seo, Jihyun
    Kang, Sang Hee
    Lee, Sun Il
    Min, Byung Wook
    ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2022, 18 (04) : 378 - 387
  • [28] Abdominoperineal Resection Provides Better Local Control But Equivalent Overall Survival to Local Excision of Anorectal Malignant Melanoma A Systematic Review
    Matsuda, Akihisa
    Miyashita, Masao
    Matsumoto, Satoshi
    Takahashi, Goro
    Matsutani, Takeshi
    Yamada, Takeshi
    Kishi, Taro
    Uchida, Eiji
    ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2015, 261 (04) : 670 - 677
  • [29] Reconstruction of the pelvic floor with a biological mesh after abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer
    Peer Wille-Jørgensen
    Bo Pilsgaard
    Peter Møller
    International Journal of Colorectal Disease, 2009, 24 : 323 - 325
  • [30] Factors Associated With Oncologic Outcomes After Abdominoperineal Resection Compared With Restorative Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Patient- and Tumor-Related or Technical Factors Only?
    Reshef, Avraham
    Lavery, Ian
    Kiran, Ravi P.
    DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 2012, 55 (01) : 51 - 58