Rate Of Positive Circumferential Resection Margin Research Articles

Comparison of the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) and non-ELAPE for low rectal cancer.

This study was performed to retrospectively analyze and compare the related clinical indicators between extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) and non-ELAPE under laparoscopic for low rectal cancer. From June 2018 to September 2021, a total of 80 patients with low rectal cancer who underwent either of the above two types of surgeries at our Hospital were enrolled. Patients were divided into the ELAPE group and non-ELAPE group based on the different surgical methods. Preoperative general indicators, intraoperative indicators, postoperative complications, positive circumferential resection margin rate, local recurrence rate, hospital stay length, hospital expenses, and other related indicators were compared between the two groups. There were no significant differences in the comparison of preoperative indexes between the ELAPE group and non-ELAPE group, including age, preoperative BMI, and gender. Similarly, there were no significant differences in abdominal operation time, total operation time, and the number of intraoperative lymph nodes dissected between the two groups. However, the perineal operation time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative perforation rate, and positive circumferential resection margin rate were significantly different between the two groups. In the comparison of postoperative indexes, perineal complications, postoperative hospital stay length, and IPSS score were significantly different between the two groups. The use of ELAPE in treating T3-4NxM0 phase low rectal cancer was superior to non-ELAPE in reducing intraoperative perforation rate, positive circumferential resection margin rate, local recurrence rate, etc.

Comparison of Laparoscopic Versus Robot-Assisted Surgery for Rectal Cancers: The COLRAR Randomized Controlled Trial.

To evaluate whether robotic for middle or low rectal cancer produces an improvement in surgical outcomes compared with laparoscopic surgery in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). There is a lack of proven clinical benefit of robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) compared with a laparoscopic approach in the setting of multicenter RCTs. Between July 2011 and February 2016, patients diagnosed with an adenocarcinoma located <10cm from the anal verge and clinically rated T1-4aNxM0 were enrolled. The primary outcome was the completeness of TME assessed by a surgeon and a pathologist. The RCT was terminated prematurely because of poor accrual of data. In all, 295 patients were assigned randomly to a robot-assisted TME group (151 in R-TME) or a laparoscopy-assisted TME group (144 in L-TME). The rates of complete TME were not different between groups (80.7% in R-TME, 77.1% in L-TME). Pathologic outcomes including the circumferential resection margin and the numbers of retrieved lymph nodes were not different between groups. In a subanalysis, the positive circumferential resection margin rate was lower in the R-TME group (0% vs 6.1% for L-TME; P =0.031). Among the recovery parameters, the length of opioid use was shorter in the R-TME group ( P =0.028). There was no difference in the postoperative complication rate between the groups (12.0% for R-TME vs 8.3% for L-TME). In patients with middle or low rectal cancer, robotic-assisted surgery did not significantly improve the TME quality compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (ClinicalTrial.gov ID: NCT01042743).

Laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision in distal rectal cancer patients: a retrospective comparative study

At present, abdominoperineal excision with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is one of the treatment modalities of distal rectal cancer. Our study analyzed the effects of laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal resection (ELAPE) compared with laparoscopic conventional abdominoperineal resection(cAPR) in the treatment of distal rectal cancer. Retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinicopathological data of 177 distal rectal cancer patients treated with a laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection between 2011 and 2018. The patients were divided into four groups as follows: ELAPE without nCRT (group A), cAPR without nCRT (group B), ELAPE with long-course nCRT (group C) and cAPR with long-course nCRT (group D). Positive circumferential resection margin (CRM), local recurrence rate, 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year overall survival (OS) did not differ between group A and group B. The rate of positive CRM in group C was lower than group D (4.4% vs. 11.9%, respectively), although the difference was not significant (P = 0.377). The 3-year local recurrence rate in group C was lower compared with group D (6.6% vs. 16.7%, respectively), although the difference was not significant (P = 0.135). Three-year DFS and 3-year OS were not different between groups C and D. This study showed that the effect of laparoscopic ELAPE in patients with low-risk rectal cancer is similar to laparoscopic cAPR, revealing that laparoscopic cAPR can be routinely selected for patients with low-risk rectal cancer. Furthermore, laparoscopic ELAPE has a tendency to reduce the rate of positive CRM and local recurrence in patients with high-risk rectal cancer. Laparoscopic ELAPE can be routinely considered for patients with high-risk rectal cancer.

Incidence, predictors and prognostic implications of positive circumferential resection margin in colon cancer: A retrospective study in a Chinese high-volume cancer center.

Positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) was associated with a higher recurrence rate and worse survival in rectal cancer. Predictors of CRM in rectal cancer have widely been investigated. Our study aims to determine the incidence, predictors and prognostic implications of positive CRM following colon cancer (CC) surgery in a Chinese high-volume cancer center. The clinicopathological features and oncological outcomes of CC patients undergoing surgery between January 2008 and December 2018 were identified from Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center database. Positive CRM was defined as resection margin ≤1 mm. A total of 5268 stage I-IV CC patients were identified in our study, 108 (2.05%) of whom had positive CRM. Multivariate logistic analysis found that advanced N stage, distant metastases and poorly differentiated tumor had increased risk of positive CRM. After propensity score matching, the 5-year overall survival rates of the patients with positive and negative CRM were 33.2% and 39.8% (P=0.005), respectively. Multivariable COX regression model showed that positive CRM was an independent prognostic factor for OS in CC patients. The overall rate of positive CRM in our center is lower than that in western population. Several adverse pathological parameters deserve more attention to identify CC patients at a high risk of positive CRM. Adoption of appropriate surgical techniques and multidisciplinary treatment planning are expected to improve oncological outcomes for high selected CC patients with “high-risk” CRM involvement.

Hospital variation in sphincter-preservation rates in rectal cancer treatment: results of a population-based study in the Netherlands.

BackgroundThis study aimed to examine the sphincter-preservation rate variations in rectal cancer surgery. The influence of hospital volume on sphincter-preservation rates and short-term outcomes (anastomotic leakage (AL), positive circumferential resection margin (CRM), 30- and 90-day mortality rates) were also analysed.MethodsNon-metastasized rectal cancer patients treated between 2009 and 2016 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Surgical procedures were divided into sphincter-preserving surgery and an end colostomy group. Multivariable logistic regression models were generated to estimate the probability of undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery according to the hospital of surgery and tumour height (low, 5 cm or less, mid, more than 5 cm to 10 cm, and high, more than 10 cm). The influence of annual hospital volume (less than 20, 20–39, more than 40 resections) on sphincter-preservation rate and short-term outcomes was also examined.ResultsA total of 20 959 patients were included (11 611 sphincter preservation and 8079 end colostomy) and the observed median sphincter-preservation rate in low, mid and high rectal cancer was 29.3, 75.6 and 87.9 per cent respectively. After case-mix adjustment, hospital of surgery was a significant factor for patients’ likelihood for sphincter preservation in all three subgroups (P < 0.001). In mid rectal cancer, borderline higher rates of sphincter preservation were associated with low-volume hospitals (odds ratio 1.20, 95 per cent c.i. 1.01 to 1.43). No significant association between annual hospital volume and sphincter-preservation rate in low and high rectal cancer nor short-term outcomes (AL, positive CRM rate and 30- and 90-day mortality rates) was identified.ConclusionThis population-based study showed a significant hospital variation in sphincter-preservation rates in rectal surgery. The annual hospital volume, however, was not associated with sphincter-preservation rates in low, and high rectal cancer nor with other short-term outcomes.

Predictors of Positive Circumferential Resection Margin in Rectal Cancer: A Current Audit of the National Cancer Database.

Positive circumferential resection margin is a predictor of local recurrence and worse survival in rectal cancer. National programs aimed to improve rectal cancer outcomes were first created in 2011 and continue to evolve. The impact on circumferential resection margin during this time frame has not been fully evaluated in the United States. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence and predictors of positive circumferential resection margin after rectal cancer resection, across patient, provider, and tumor characteristics. This was a retrospective cohort study. The study was conducted using the National Cancer Database, 2011-2016. Adults who underwent proctectomy for pathologic stage I to III rectal adenocarcinoma were included. Rate and predictors of positive circumferential resection margin, defined as resection margin ≤1 mm, were measured. Of 52,620 cases, circumferential resection margin status was reported in 90% (n = 47,331) and positive in 18.4% (n = 8719). Unadjusted analysis showed that patients with positive circumferential resection margin were more often men, had public insurance and shorter travel, underwent total proctectomy via open and robotic approaches, and were treated in Southern and Western regions at integrated cancer networks (all p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis noted that positive proximal and/or distal margin on resected specimen had the strongest association with positive circumferential resection margin (OR = 15.6 (95% CI, 13.6-18.1); p < 0.001). Perineural invasion, total proctectomy, robotic approach, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, integrated cancer network, advanced tumor size and grade, and Black race had increased risk of positive circumferential resection margin (all p < 0.050). Laparoscopic approach, surgery in North, South, and Midwest regions, greater hospital volume and travel distance, lower T-stage, and higher income were associated with decreased risk (all p < 0.028). This was a retrospective cohort study with limited variables available for analysis. Despite creation of national initiatives, positive circumferential resection margin rate remains an alarming 18.4%. The persistently high rate with predictors of positive circumferential resection margin identified calls for additional education, targeted quality improvement assessments, and publicized auditing to improve rectal cancer care in the United States. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B584. ANTECEDENTES:El margen positivo de resección circunferencial es un predictor de recurrencia local y peor sobrevida en el cáncer de recto. Los programas nacionales destinados a mejorar los resultados del cáncer de recto se crearon por primera vez en 2011 y continúan evolucionando. La repercusión del margen de resección circunferencial durante este período de tiempo no se ha evaluado completamente en los Estados Unidos.OBJETIVO:Determinar la incidencia y los predictores para un margen positivo de resección circunferencial posterior a la resección del cáncer de recto, según las características del paciente, el proveedor y el tumor.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.AMBITO:Base de datos nacional de cáncer, 2011-2016.PACIENTES:Adultos que se sometieron a proctectomía por adenocarcinoma de recto con un estadío por patología I-III.PRINCIPALES VARIABLES EVALUADAS:Tasa y predictores para un margen positivo de resección circunferencial, definido como margen de resección ≤ 1 mm.RESULTADOS:De 52,620 casos, la condición del margen de resección circunferencial se informó en el 90% (n = 47,331) y positivo en el 18.4% (n = 8,719). El análisis no ajustado mostró que los pacientes con margen positivo de resección circunferencial se presentó con mayor frecuencia en hombres, tenían un seguro social y viajes más cortos, se operaron de proctectomía total abierta y robótica, y fueron tratados en las regiones del sur y el oeste en redes integradas de cáncer (todos p <0,001). El análisis multivariado destacó que el margen proximal y / o distal positivo de la pieza resecada tenía la asociación más fuerte con el margen postivo de resección circunferencial (OR 15,6; IC del 95%: 13,6-18,1, p <0,001). La invasión perineural, la proctectomía total, el abordaje robótico, la quimioradioterapia neoadyuvante, la red de cáncer integrada, el tamaño y grado del tumor avanzado y la raza afroamericana tenían un mayor riesgo de un margen de una resección positiva circunferencial (todos p <0,050). El abordaje laparoscópico, la cirugía en las regiones Norte, Sur y Medio Oeste, un mayor volumen hospitalario y distancia de viaje, estadio T más bajo y mayores ingresos se asociaron con una disminución del riesgo (todos p <0,028).LIMITACIONES:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo con variables limitadas disponibles para análisis.CONCLUSIONES:A pesar del establecimiento de iniciativas nacionales, la tasa de margen positivo de resección circunferencial continúa siendo alarmante, 18,4%. El índice continuamente elevado junto a los predictores de un margen positivo de resección circunferencial hace un llamado para una mayor educación, evaluaciones específicas de mejora de la calidad y difusión de las auditorías para mejorar la atención del cáncer de recto en los Estados Unidos. Vea el resumen de video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B584. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B584.

Locoregional recurrences after transanal total mesorectal excision of rectal cancer during implementation.

BackgroundTransanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has been proposed as an approach in patients with mid and low rectal cancer. The TaTME procedure has been introduced in the Netherlands in a structured training pathway, including proctoring. This study evaluated the local recurrence rate during the implementation phase of TaTME.MethodsOncological outcomes of the first ten TaTME procedures in each of 12 participating centres were collected as part of an external audit of procedure implementation. Data collected from a cohort of patients treated over a prolonged period in four centres were also collected to analyse learning curve effects. The primary outcome was the presence of locoregional recurrence.ResultsThe implementation cohort of 120 patients had a median follow up of 21·9 months. Short‐term outcomes included a positive circumferential resection margin rate of 5·0 per cent and anastomotic leakage rate of 17 per cent. The overall local recurrence rate in the implementation cohort was 10·0 per cent (12 of 120), with a mean(s.d.) interval to recurrence of 15·2(7·0) months. Multifocal local recurrence was present in eight of 12 patients. In the prolonged cohort (266 patients), the overall recurrence rate was 5·6 per cent (4·0 per cent after excluding the first 10 procedures at each centre).ConclusionTaTME was associated with a multifocal local recurrence rate that may be related to suboptimal execution rather than the technique itself. Prolonged proctoring, optimization of the technique to avoid spillage, and quality control is recommended.

Predictive Factors and Risk Model for Positive Circumferential Resection Margin Rate After Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision in 2653 Patients With Rectal Cancer.

The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of, and preoperative risk factors for, positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) after transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME). TaTME has the potential to further reduce the rate of positive CRM for patients with low rectal cancer, thereby improving oncological outcome. A prospective registry-based study including all cases recorded on the international TaTME registry between July 2014 and January 2018 was performed. Endpoints were the incidence of, and predictive factors for, positive CRM. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were performed, and factors for positive CRM were then assessed by formulating a predictive model. In total, 2653 patients undergoing TaTME for rectal cancer were included. The incidence of positive CRM was 107 (4.0%). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, a positive CRM after TaTME was significantly associated with tumors located up to 1 cm from the anorectal junction, anterior tumors, cT4 tumors, extra-mural venous invasion (EMVI), and threatened or involved CRM on baseline MRI (odds ratios 2.09, 1.66, 1.93, 1.94, and 1.72, respectively). The predictive model showed adequate discrimination (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve >0.70), and predicted a 28% risk of positive CRM if all risk factors were present. Five preoperative tumor-related characteristics had an adverse effect on CRM involvement after TaTME. The predicted risk of positive CRM after TaTME for a specific patient can be calculated preoperatively with the proposed model and may help guide patient selection for optimal treatment and enhance a tailored treatment approach to further optimize oncological outcomes.

Safety and Feasibility of Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging Criteria to Identify Patients With “Good Prognosis” Rectal Cancer Eligible for Primary Surgery

Chemoradiotherapy (CRT), followed by surgery, is the recommended approach for stage II and III rectal cancer. While CRT decreases the risk of local recurrence, it does not improve survival and leads to poorer functional outcomes than surgery alone. Therefore, new approaches to better select patients for CRT are important. To conduct a phase 2 study to evaluate the safety and feasibility of using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) criteria to select patients with "good prognosis" rectal tumors for primary surgery. Prospective nonrandomized phase 2 study at 12 high-volume colorectal surgery centers across Canada. From September 30, 2014, to October 21, 2016, a total of 82 patients were recruited for the study. Participants were patients newly diagnosed as having rectal cancer with MRI-predicted good prognosis rectal cancer. The MRI criteria for good prognosis tumors included distance to the mesorectal fascia greater than 1 mm; definite T2, T2/early T3, or definite T3 with less than 5 mm of extramural depth of invasion; and absent or equivocal extramural venous invasion. Patients with rectal cancer with MRI-predicted good prognosis tumors underwent primary surgery. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) rate. Assuming a 10% baseline probability of a positive CRM, a sample size of 75 was estimated to yield a 95% CI of ±6.7%. Eighty-two patients (74% male) participated in the study. The median age at the time of surgery was 66 years (range, 37-89 years). Based on MRI, most tumors were midrectal (65% [n = 53]), T2/early T3 (60% [n = 49]), with no suspicious lymph nodes (63% [n = 52]). On final pathology, 91% (n = 75) of tumors were T2 or greater, 29% (n = 24) were node positive, and 59% (n = 48) were stage II or III. The positive CRM rate was 4 of 82 (4.9%; 95% CI, 0.2%-9.6%). The use of MRI criteria to select patients with good prognosis rectal cancer for primary surgery results in a low rate of positive CRM and suggests that CRT may not be necessary for all patients with stage II and III rectal cancer. ISRCTN.com identifier: ISRCTN05107772.

Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes between laparoscope-assisted transanal total mesorectal excision and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for the treatment of mid and low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

To evaluate systematically the short- and long-term outcomes between laparoscope-assisted transanal total mesorectal excision (LA-taTME) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME) in the treatment of mid and low rectal cancer. Literatures comparing LA-taTME with L-TME published from January 2014 to January 2018 were systematically selected through searching PubMed, Ovid, EMbase, Cochrane Library, CNKI and Wanfang databases. Literature screening and methodology quality evaluation were carried out by two surgeons independently. Randomized controlled trial (RCT) was evaluated by the modified Jadad rating scale, in which 1 to 3 and 4 to 7 were considered as low and high quality,respectively(total scores: 7). Non-randomized controlled trial (NRCT) was assessed by the modified Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS), in which 1 to 3, 4 to 6, and 7 to 9 were defined as low, moderate, and high quality, respectively (total score: 9). Ratio of incomplete mesorectum, positive rate of circumferential resection margin (CRM), number of harvested lymph node, distance of distal resection margin, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, morbidity of postoperative complication, conversion rate, hospital stay, recurrence, 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 2-year overall survival (OS) were compared and analyzed by using Stata/SE12.0 software. Fourteen studies including 1 RCT and 13 NRCTs were enrolled finally. Among them, the RCT with a score of 6 was considered to be of high quality; all NRCTs (2 with 6 stars, 5 with 7 stars, and another 6 with 8 stars) were indicative of moderate to high quality; 450 patients underwent LA-taTME and 498 patients underwent L-TME. No significant differences were observed in terms of age, gender, tumor location and TNM stage between two approaches (all P>0.05). Compared to L-TME, LA-taTME had lower ratio of incomplete mesorectum (RR=0.53, 95%CI: 0.31 to 0.93, P=0.026), lower positive rate of CRM (RR=0.50, 95%CI: 0.29 to 0.86, P=0.012), lower conversion rate(RR=0.48, 95%CI: 0.26 to 0.86, P=0.014), lower morbidity of postoperative complication (RR=0.81, 95%CI: 0.67 to 0.99, P=0.036) and less intraoperative blood loss (SMD=-0.38, 95%CI:-0.68 to -0.08, P=0.013). While the differences between two groups had no statistical significance in terms of operative duration, number of harvested lymph node, distance of distal resection margin, hospital stay, overall recurrence, 2-year DFS and 2-year OS (all P>0.05). The short- and long-term outcomes of LA-taTME and L-TME for the treatment of mid and low rectal cancer are comparable, while LA-taTME can reduce the ratio of incomplete mesorectum, positive rate of CRM, conversion rate, and morbidity of postoperative complication, and intraoperative blood loss.

Pathological outcomes of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Since 2010, comparative studies on transanal and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) have been published and it remains unclear about the oncological benefit from transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME). We have searched English databases to identify all taTME studies published between January 2010 and August 2017. Pathological outcomes included circumferential resection margin (CRM), positive CRM (< 1M), length of distal resection margin (DRM), positive DRM, quality of mesorectum (complete mesorectum), harvested lymph node, and length of the specimen. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous outcomes. We have included ten studies comprising of 762 patients. Compared with laparoscopic TME, taTME had a longer CRM (WMD, 0.833; 95% CI 0.366-1.299; P < 0.001), a lower positive rate of CRM (OR, 0.505; 95% CI 0.258-0.991; P = 0.047), and a longer DRM (WMD, 6.261; 95% CI 1.049-11.472; P = 0.019). There were no significant differences in other pathological outcomes. Both cumulative meta-analysis and sensitivity analysis were unable to detect potential sources of the heterogeneity in DRM. There was no evidence of publication bias. This meta-analysis revealed that taTME had more advantages on positive CRM, CRM, and DRM compared with laparoscopic TME. Compared with laparoscopic TME, more benefits of taTME on pathological outcomes remained undetected. The current findings are all based on observational studies, RCTs with adequate power are required.

Prolonged interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and esophagectomy does not benefit the outcome in esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Whether a prolonged interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and esophagectomy could benefits conditions such as rectal cancer, still remains unknown. We therefore performed the current study to evaluate the influence of the interval between nCRT and esophagectomy on the clinical outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer. PubMed and Embase were searched to identify eligible cohort studies. The primary outcome was five-year overall survival (OS), and secondary outcomes included the incidence of anastomotic complications, perioperative mortality, pathologic complete response (pCR) rate, positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) rate, and R0 resection rate. A random-effects model was used for all meta-analyses irrespective of heterogeneity. Ten cohort studies with 2383 patients were included. Overall, the pooled estimate revealed that the prolonged interval has no impact on five-year OS (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.14, P=0.30), with low heterogeneity (PH =0.78, I2 =0%). However, it was associated with an increased risk of anastomotic complication (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.54, P=0.008), with no effect on perioperative mortality (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.83, P=0.40). Additionally, the prolonged interval failed to increase the pCR rate (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.33, P=0.89). Even worse, it was correlated with a decreased R0 resection rate (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.88, P=0.009) and increased positive CRM rate (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.36, P<0.001). This study suggests that the prolonged interval between nCRT and esophagectomy fails to result in better outcomes, and in fact, could worsen clinical outcomes, with increasing anastomotic complications, and undermine resection completeness. However, this conclusion should be treated with caution because of the limitations of retrospective cohort study and substantial clinical heterogeneity. (The study was registered at PRESPERO as CRD42016048210).

Outcomes following laparoscopic rectal cancer resection by supervised trainees.

The aim was to evaluate the applicability of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of primary rectal cancer in a training unit. A cohort analysis was undertaken of consecutive patients undergoing elective surgery for primary rectal cancer over a 7-year interval. Data on patient and operative details, and short-term clinicopathological outcomes were collected prospectively and analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. A total of 306 patients (213 men, 69·6 per cent) of median (i.q.r.) age 67 (58-73) years with a median body mass index of 26·6 (23·9-29·9) kg/m(2) underwent surgery. Median tumour height was 8 (6-11) cm from the anal verge, and 46 patients (15·0 per cent) received neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Seven patients (2·3 per cent) were considered unsuitable for laparoscopic surgery and underwent open resection; 299 patients (97·7 per cent) were suitable for laparoscopic surgery, but eight were randomized to open surgery as part of an ongoing trial. Some 291 patients (95·1 per cent) underwent a laparoscopic procedure, with conversion required in 29 (10·0 per cent). Surgery was partially or completely performed by trainees in 72·4 per cent of National Health Service patients (184 of 254), whereas private patients underwent surgery primarily by consultants. Median postoperative length of stay for all patients was 6 days and the positive circumferential resection margin rate was 4·9 per cent (15 of 306). Supervised trainees can perform routine laparoscopic rectal cancer resection.

Can induction chemotherapy before concurrent chemoradiation impact circumferential resection margin positivity and survival in low rectal cancers?

Distance from anal verge and abdominoperineal resection are risk factors for circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity in rectal cancer. Induction chemotherapy (IC) before concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) has emerged as a new treatment modification. Impact of IC before concurrent CRT on CRM positivity in low rectal cancer remains to be independently studied. The objective of this study was to determine CRM positivity in low rectal cancer, with and without prior IC, and to identify predictors of disease free and overall survival. Patients who underwent surgery for rectal cancer between 2005 and 2011 were retrospectively reviewed and divided into two groups. Group 1 received IC before CRT and Group 2 did not. Demographics, clinicopathological variables and CRM status were compared. Actuarial 5 year disease free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and independent predictors of survival were determined. Patients in the IC group presented with advanced stage (Stage 3=89.2% versus 75.4%) (P=0.02) but a high rate of total mesorectal excision (TME) (100% versus 93.4%) (P=0.01) and sphincter preservation surgery (54.9 % versus 22.9%) (P=0.001). Patients with low rectal cancer who received IC had a significantly low positive CRM rate (9.2% versus 34%) (P=0.002). Actuarial 5 year DFS in IC and no IC groups were 39% and 43% (P=0.9) and 5 year OS were 70% and 47% (P=0.003). Pathological tumor size [HR: 2.2, CI: 1.1-4.5, P=0.01] and nodal involvement [HR: 2, CI: 1.08-4, P=0.02] were independent predictors of relapse while pathological nodal involvement [HR: 2.6, CI: 1.3-4.9, P=0.003] and IC [HR: 0.7, CI: 0.5-0.9, P=0.02] were independent predictors of death. In low rectal cancer, induction chemotherapy before CRT may significantly decrease CRM positivity and improve 5 year overall survival.

Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes after extralevator abdominoperineal excision and standard abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Whether the introduction of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) improves survival and safety remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all comparative studies to define the efficacy and safety of ELAPE and standard abdominoperineal excision (APE). A search for all major databases and relevant journals from inception to July 2013 without restriction on languages or regions was performed. Outcome measures were the oncological parameters of circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement, intraoperative bowel perforation (IOP), and local recurrence, as well as other parameters of blood loss, operative time, length of hospitalization, and postoperative complication. The test of heterogeneity was performed with the Q statistic. A total of 949 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Oncological pooled estimates of intraoperative bowel perforation rate (RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.21-0.54; P<0.00001), CRM involvement (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.34-0.56; P<0.00001), and local recurrence (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.14-0.74; P=0.008) all showed outcomes that were significantly lower in ELAPE than in APE. A similar incidence of postoperative complication was attributed to both groups, including overall complication (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.66-1.32; P=0.69), perineal wound complication (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.33-1.55; P=0.39), and urinary dysfunction (RR 1.53; 95% CI 0.88-2.67; P=0.13). ELAPE has a lower intraoperative bowel perforation rate, positive CRM rate, and local recurrence rate than APE. There is evidence that in selected low rectal cancer patients, ELAPE is a more efficient and equally safe option to replace APE. Due to the inherent limitations of the present study, future randomized controlled trials will be useful to confirm this conclusion.

Predictive factors of positive circumferential resection margin after radiochemotherapy for rectal cancer: The French randomised trial ACCORD12/0405 PRODIGE 2

Circumferential resection margin (CRM) appears as a new powerful prognostic factor of survival after surgery for rectal cancer. We aimed to evaluate predictive factors of positive CRM following preoperative radiochemotherapy in a French trial.Patients with rectal cancer were randomised in long course preoperative radiotherapy 45Gy plus capecitabine versus 50Gy plus capecitabine and oxaliplatin. Mesorectal excision was performed 6weeks after treatment. Impact of clinical, pathological and surgical variables on positive CRM (⩽1mm) were analysed by multivariate analysis.Of 565 randomised patients, CRM was recorded in 390 cases and was positive in 8% (30/390). Patients with 50Gy plus capecitabine and oxaliplatin had a 6% rate of positive CRM while those treated by 45Gy plus capecitabine had a 10% rate (p=0.128). Three independent predictive factors of positive CRM were identified: abdominoperineal resection (APR) (odds ratio OR=3.24; p=0.004), vascular tumour invasion (OR=2.78; p=0.026) and poor histological response (modified Dworak 0–2) (OR=9.01; p=0.003).Significant predictive factors of positive CRM are related to type of surgery, especially APR, and poor histological prognostic factors. Intensification of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy does not seem to have a major role in this study.

Is the circumferential resection margin a predictor of local recurrence after preoperative radiotherapy and optimal surgery for rectal carcinoma?

Circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement has been correlated with a high risk of developing local recurrence. The aim of this study was to examine the prognostic significance of the CRM involvement after curative resection of rectal cancer in patients treated with preoperative radiotherapy and postoperative chemotherapy where indicated. All patients with rectal cancer treated in a regional central unit from 1996 to 2004 were identified. A surgical resection was performed on 257 patients, and in 229 of these this was assessed as potentially curative. The CRM was examined in all patients. A CRM of < or = 1 mm was considered positive. A positive margin was seen in 19 (8%) patients. At a median follow up of 40 months, only four (1.7%) patients had developed local recurrence, one of whom had a positive CRM. In the four patients the tumour was 5 cm or less from the anal verge. There were no significant differences regarding local recurrence and survival between CRM positive and negative tumours. Rectal cancer managed by combined radiochemotherapy and surgery resulted in a low positive CRM rate and a low local recurrence rate. An involved CRM was not a predictor of local recurrence.

Variations in Pelvic Dimensions Do Not Predict the Risk of Circumferential Resection Margin (CRM) Involvement in Rectal Cancer

The objective of this study was to assess the value of preoperative pelvimetry, using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), in predicting the risk of an involved circumferential resection margin (CRM) in a group of patients with operable rectal cancer. A cohort of 186 patients from the MERCURY study was selected. These patients' histological CRM status was compared against 14 pelvimetry parameters measured from the preoperative MRI. These measurements were taken by one of the investigators (G.S.), who was blinded to the final CRM status. There was no correlation between the pelvimetry and the CRM status. However, there was a difference in the height of the rectal cancer and the positive CRM rate (p = 0.011). Of 61 patients with low rectal cancer, 10 had positive CRM at histology (16.4% with CI 8.2%-22.1%) compared with 5 of 110 patients with mid/upper rectal cancers (4.5% with CI 0.7%-8.4%). Magnetic resonance imaging can predict clear margins in most cases of rectal cancer. Circumferential resection margin positivity cannot be predicted from pelvimetry in patients with rectal cancer selected for curative surgery. The only predictive factor for a positive CRM in the patients studied was tumor height.