Extralevator with vs nonextralevator abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer: the RELAPe randomized controlled trial

被引:22
作者
Bianco, F. [1 ,2 ]
Romano, G. [2 ]
Tsarkov, P. [3 ]
Stanojevic, G. [4 ]
Shroyer, K. [5 ]
Giuratrabocchetta, S. [1 ]
Bergamaschi, R. [1 ]
机构
[1] SUNY Stony Brook, Div Colorectal Surg, Stony Brook, NY USA
[2] Natl Canc Inst, Dept Colorectal Surg, Naples, Italy
[3] Sechenov First Moscow State Med Univ, Dept Colorectal Surg, Moscow, Russia
[4] Sch Univ Nis, Dept Colorectal Surg, Nish, Serbia
[5] SUNY Stony Brook, Dept Pathol, Stony Brook, NY USA
关键词
Randomized controlled trial; circumferential resection margin; extralevator abdominoperineal excision; TOTAL MESORECTAL EXCISION; FLAP RECONSTRUCTION; RESECTION; OUTCOMES; STANDARD; INFECTIONS; CARCINOMA; SCIENCE; SURGERY; CARE;
D O I
10.1111/codi.13436
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Aim A randomized controlled trial was conducted to test the null hypothesis that there is no difference in circumferential resection margin (CRM) between extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) and non-ELAPE for rectal cancer. Method This was a multicentre, randomized controlled trial registered as NCT01702116. Patients with rectal cancer involving the external anal sphincter were randomized to ELAPE or non-ELAPE following neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Randomization was performed according to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines. The primary end-point was CRM (in mm), defined as the shortest distance between the tumour and the cut edge of the specimen. Pathologists and centralized pathology were blinded to the patients' study arm. Interrater reliability (IRR) was assessed using Kendall's coefficient. Intra-operative perforation (IOP) was any rectal defect determined at pathology. Complications were classified using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Participating surgeons were retrained and credentialed. A sample size calculation showed that 34 subjects would provide sufficient power to reject the null hypothesis. Results Thirty-four patients underwent the allocated intervention. Seventeen patients treated with ELAPE were comparable with 17 patients treated with non-ELAPE regarding age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) class and pre-existing comorbidities. CRM depth (7.14 +/- 5.76 mm vs 2.98 +/- 3.28 mm, P = 0.016) and involvement rates (5.8% vs 41.0%, P = 0.04) were significantly increased in patients treated with ELAPE. The IRR for CRM was 0.78. There were no significant differences in IOP (5.8% vs 11.7%, P = 0.77) and complication rates (29% vs 29%, P = 0.97). Conclusions ELAPE was associated with statistically improved CRM with no difference in IOP and complication rates compared with non-ELAPE for rectal cancer involving the external anal sphincter.
引用
收藏
页码:148 / 157
页数:10
相关论文
共 35 条
[1]   Persistent perineal morbidity is common following abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer [J].
Asplund, Dan ;
Prytz, Mattias ;
Bock, David ;
Haglind, Eva ;
Angenete, Eva .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2015, 30 (11) :1563-1570
[2]   Evidence-based surgery: A passing fad? [J].
Black, N .
WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 1999, 23 (08) :789-793
[3]   A Randomized Trial of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer [J].
Bonjer, H. Jaap ;
Deijen, Charlotte L. ;
Abis, Gabor A. ;
Cuesta, Miguel A. ;
van der Pas, Martijn H. G. M. ;
de lange-de Klerk, Elly S. M. ;
Lacy, Antonio M. ;
Bemelman, Willem A. ;
Andersson, John ;
Angenete, Eva ;
Rosenberg, Jacob ;
Fuerst, Alois ;
Haglind, Eva .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2015, 372 (14) :1324-1332
[4]   Outcomes of immediate vertical rectus Abdominis myocutaneous flap reconstruction for irradiated abdominoperineal resection defects [J].
Butler, Charles E. ;
Gundeslioglu, A. Ozlem ;
Rodriguez-Bigas, Miguel A. .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 2008, 206 (04) :694-703
[5]   The role of data and safety monitoring in acute trauma resuscitation research [J].
Champion, Howard R. ;
Fingerhut, Abe ;
Escobar, Miguel A. ;
Weiskopf, Richard B. .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 2007, 204 (01) :73-83
[6]   Standard Versus Extralevator Abdominoperineal Low Rectal Cancer Excision Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis [J].
De Nardi, Paola ;
Summo, Valeria ;
Vignali, Andrea ;
Capretti, Giovanni .
ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2015, 22 (09) :2997-3006
[7]  
Edge SB., 2010, AJCC CANC STAGING MA, V7th, P103
[8]   The Miles operation - extralevator abdominoperineal excision [J].
Finan, Paul ;
Haboubi, Najib .
COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2012, 14 (10) :1171-1172
[9]   Fundamental principles of validation, and reliability: rigorous science for the assessment of surgical education and training [J].
Gallagher, AG ;
Ritter, EM ;
Satava, RM .
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2003, 17 (10) :1525-1529
[10]   When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise [J].
Glasziou, Paul ;
Chalmers, Iain ;
Rawlins, Michael ;
McCulloch, Peter .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2007, 334 (7589) :349-351