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
[11]   Extended abdominoperineal resection with gluteus maximus flap reconstruction of the pelvic floor for rectal cancer [J].
Holm, T. ;
Ljung, A. ;
Haggmark, T. ;
Jurell, G. ;
Lagergren, J. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2007, 94 (02) :232-238
[12]   CDC DEFINITIONS OF NOSOCOMIAL SURGICAL SITE INFECTIONS, 1992 - A MODIFICATION OF CDC DEFINITIONS OF SURGICAL WOUND INFECTIONS [J].
HORAN, TC ;
GAYNES, RP ;
MARTONE, WJ ;
JARVIS, WR ;
EMORI, TG .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL, 1992, 20 (05) :271-274
[13]   CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of health care-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting [J].
Horan, Teresa C. ;
Andrus, Mary ;
Dudeck, Margaret A. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL, 2008, 36 (05) :309-332
[14]   A clinical trial to evaluate the worth of preoperative multimodality therapy in patients with operable carcinoma of the rectum - A progress report of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol R-03 [J].
Hyams, DM ;
Mamounas, EP ;
Petrelli, N ;
Rockette, H ;
Jones, J ;
Wieand, HS ;
Deutsch, M ;
Wickerham, DL ;
Fisher, B ;
Wolmark, N .
DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 1997, 40 (02) :131-139
[15]   Rectal cancer: From outcomes of care to process of care [J].
Ignjatovic, Dejan ;
Bergamaschi, Roberto .
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2006, 41 (06) :636-639
[16]  
Kang CY, 2012, AM SURGEON, V78, P1033
[18]   The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials [J].
Moher, D ;
Schulz, KF ;
Altman, DG .
LANCET, 2001, 357 (9263) :1191-1194
[19]   PELVIC RECURRENCE AFTER EXCISION OF RECTUM FOR CARCINOMA [J].
MORSON, BC ;
VAUGHAN, EG ;
BUSSEY, HJR .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1963, (534) :13-+
[20]   Macroscopic evaluation of rectal cancer resection specimen: Clinical significance of the pathologist in quality control [J].
Nagtegaal, ID ;
van de Velde, CJH ;
van der Worp, E ;
Kapiteijn, E ;
Quirke, P ;
van Krieken, JHJM .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2002, 20 (07) :1729-1734