Arne Wibe

A national strategic change in treatment policy for rectal cancer--implementation of total mesorectal excision as routine treatment in Norway. A national audit.

AbstractINTRODUCTION: Rectal cancer surgery has been characterized by a high incidence of local recurrence, an occurrence which influences survival negatively. In Norway there was a growing recognition that local recurrence rates were related to surgeon performance and that surgeons applying a standardized surgical technique in the form of total mesorectal excision could achieve better results. This contrasts with the prevailing argument voiced by many opinion leaders that local recurrence rates and possibly survival rates can only be improved by adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment strategies. The Norwegian Rectal Cancer Project—initiated in 1993—aimed at improving the outcome of patients with rectal cancer by implementing total mesorectal excision as the standard rectal resection technique. METHODS: This observational national cohort study covers all new patients (3,319) with rectal cancer from a population of 4.5 million treated between November 1993 and August 1997. The main outcome measures were local recurrence, survival, and postoperative mortality and morbidity rates. The technique of total mesorectal excision was compared with conventional surgery. RESULTS: The proportion of patients undergoing total mesorectal excision was 78 percent in 1994, increasing to 92 percent in 1997. The observed local recurrence rate for patients undergoing a curative resection was 6 percent in the group treated by total mesorectal excision and 12 percent in the conventional surgery group. Four-year survival rate was 73 percent after total mesorectal excision and 60 percent after conventional surgery. Postoperative mortality rate was 3 percent and the anastomotic dehiscence rate was 10 percent. Radiotherapy was given to 5 percent and chemotherapy to 3 percent of the patients in the curative resection group. CONCLUSION: A refinement of the surgical resection technique for rectal cancer can be achieved on a national level, the technique of total mesorectal excision can be widely distributed, and surgery alone can give good results.

Oncological outcomes after total mesorectal excision for cure for cancer of the lower rectum: Anterior vs. abdominoperineal resection

PURPOSE: This study was designed to examine the outcome of cancer of the lower rectum, particularly the rates of local recurrence and survival for tumors located in this area that have been treated by anterior or abdominoperineal resections. METHODS: A prospective, observational, national, cohort study which is part of the Norwegian Rectal Cancer Project. The present cohort includes all patients undergoing total mesorectal excision in 47 hospitals during the period November 1993 to December 1999. A total of 2,136 patients with rectal cancer within 12 cm of the anal verge were analyzed; there were 1,315 (62 percent) anterior resections and 821 (38 percent) abdominoperineal resections. The lower edge of the tumor was located 0 to 5 cm from the anal verge in 791 patients, 6 to 8 cm in 558 patients, and 9 to 12 cm in 787 patients. According to the TNM classification, there were 33 percent Stage I, 35 percent Stage II, and 32 percent Stage III. RESULTS: Univariate analyses: The five-year local recurrence rate was 15 percent in the lower level, 13 percent in the intermediate level, and 9 percent in the upper level (P = 0.014). It was 10 percent local recurrence after anterior resection and 15 percent after abdominoperineal resection (P = 0.008). The five-year survival rate was 59 percent in the lower level, 62 percent in the intermediate level, and 69 percent in the upper level (P < 0.001), respectively, and it was 68 percent in the anterior-resection group and 55 percent in the abdominoperineal-resection group (P < 0.001). Multivariate analyses: The level of the tumor influenced the risk of local recurrence (hazard ratio, 1.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.1–2.3), but the operative procedure, anterior resection vs. abdominoperineal resection, did not (hazard ratio, 1.2; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.7–1.8). On the contrary, operative procedure influenced survival (hazard ratio, 1.3; 95 percent confidence interval, 1–1.6), but tumor level did not (hazard ratio, 1.1; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.9–1.5). In addition to patient and tumor characteristics (T4 tumors), intraoperative bowel perforation and tumor involvement of the circumferential margin were identified as significant prognostic factors, which were more common in the lower rectum, explaining the inferior prognosis for tumors in this region. CONCLUSIONS: T4 tumors, R1 resections, and/or intraoperative perforation of the tumor or bowel wall are main features of low rectal cancers, causing inferior oncologic outcomes for tumors in this area. If surgery is optimized, preventing intraoperative perforation and involvement of the circumferential resection margin, the prognosis for cancers of the lower rectum seems not to be inherently different from that for tumors at higher levels. In that case, the level of the tumor or the type of resection will not be indicators for selecting patients for radiotherapy.

Anastomotic leakage following routine mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in a national cohort of patients

Objective  Mesorectal excision is successfully implemented as the standard surgical technique for rectal cancer resections in Norway. This technique has been associated with higher rates of anastomotic leakage (AL) and the purpose of this study was to examine AL in a large national cohort of patients.

Transanal Excision vs. Major Surgery for T1 Rectal Cancer

PURPOSEThe purpose of this national study was to examine the long-term results of transanal excision compared with major surgery of T1 rectal cancer.METHODSThis prospective study from the Norwegian Rectal Cancer Project included all 291 patients with a T1M0 tumor within 15 cm from the anal verge treated by anterior resection, abdominoperineal resection, Hartmann’s procedure, or transanal excision in the period from November 1993 to December 1999.RESULTSTwo hundred fifty-six patients were treated by major surgery and 35 patients by transanal excision. None of the patients had neoadjuvant therapy. Macroscopic tumor remnants (R2) occurred in 17 percent (6/35) of the transanal excisions, while major surgery obtained 100 percent R0 resections. Eleven percent of the patients treated with major surgery had glandular involvement. There were no significant differences according to tumor localization, size, or differentiation between Stage I and Stage III tumors. Patients treated with transanal excision were older than patients having major surgery (mean age, 77 vs. 68 years, P < 0.001). After curative resection (R0, R1, Rx) the five-year rate of local recurrence was 12 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 0–24) in the transanal excision group compared with 6 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 2–10) after major surgery (P = 0.010). The overall five-year survival was 70 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 52–88) in the transanal excision group compared with 80 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 74–85) in the major surgery group (P = 0.04) and the five-year disease-free survival was 64 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 46–82) in the transanal excision group compared with 77 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 71–83) in the major surgery group (P = 0.01).CONCLUSIONSThe main problem of transanal excision for early rectal cancer in the present study was the inability to remove all the malignancy. Patients treated with transanal excision had significantly higher rates of local recurrence compared with patients who underwent major surgery. Patients who had transanal excision had inferior survival, but they were older than those who had major surgery.

EURECCA colorectal: Multidisciplinary management: European consensus conference colon & rectum

BACKGROUND Care for patients with colon and rectal cancer has improved in the last 20years; however considerable variation still exists in cancer management and outcome between European countries. Large variation is also apparent between national guidelines and patterns of cancer care in Europe. Therefore, EURECCA, which is the acronym of European Registration of Cancer Care, is aiming at defining core treatment strategies and developing a European audit structure in order to improve the quality of care for all patients with colon and rectal cancer. In December 2012, the first multidisciplinary consensus conference about cancer of the colon and rectum was held. The expert panel consisted of representatives of European scientific organisations involved in cancer care of patients with colon and rectal cancer and representatives of national colorectal registries. METHODS The expert panel had delegates of the European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO), European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO), European Society of Pathology (ESP), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European Society of Radiology (ESR), European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP), European CanCer Organisation (ECCO), European Oncology Nursing Society (EONS) and the European Colorectal Cancer Patient Organisation (EuropaColon), as well as delegates from national registries or audits. Consensus was achieved using the Delphi method. For the Delphi process, multidisciplinary experts were invited to comment and vote three web-based online voting rounds and to lecture on the subjects during the meeting (13th-15th December 2012). The sentences in the consensus document were available during the meeting and a televoting round during the conference by all participants was performed. This manuscript covers all sentences of the consensus document with the result of the voting. The consensus document represents sections on diagnostics, pathology, surgery, medical oncology, radiotherapy, and follow-up where applicable for treatment of colon cancer, rectal cancer and metastatic colorectal disease separately. Moreover, evidence based algorithms for diagnostics and treatment were composed which were also submitted to the Delphi process. RESULTS The total number of the voted sentences was 465. All chapters were voted on by at least 75% of the experts. Of the 465 sentences, 84% achieved large consensus, 6% achieved moderate consensus, and 7% resulted in minimum consensus. Only 3% was disagreed by more than 50% of the members. CONCLUSIONS Multidisciplinary consensus on key diagnostic and treatment issues for colon and rectal cancer management using the Delphi method was successful. This consensus document embodies the expertise of professionals from all disciplines involved in the care for patients with colon and rectal cancer. Diagnostic and treatment algorithms were developed to implement the current evidence and to define core treatment guidance for multidisciplinary team management of colon and rectal cancer throughout Europe.

Inadvertent perforation during rectal cancer resection in Norway

Inadvertent perforation of the bowel or tumour is a relatively common complication during resection of rectal cancer. The purpose of this study was to examine intraoperative perforation following the introduction of mesorectal excision as a standard surgical technique in Norway.

Circumferential resection margin as a prognostic factor in rectal cancer

This study examined the prognostic impact of the circumferential resection margin (CRM) in patients with rectal cancer treated by total mesorectal excision (TME) with or without radiotherapy.

Effect of hospital caseload on long-term outcome after standardization of rectal cancer surgery at a national level

The purpose of this prospective study was to examine the influence of hospital caseload on long‐term outcome following standardization of rectal cancer surgery at a national level.

Total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer – what can be achieved by a national audit?

Objective  The results of rectal cancer surgery in Norway have been poor. In a national audit for the period 1986–88, 28% of the patients developed local recurrence (LR) following treatment with a curative intent. Five‐year overall survival was 55% for patients younger than 75 years. The aim of this study is to report how an initiative focusing on better surgery can improve the prognosis for rectal cancer patients on a national level.

Nationwide quality assurance of rectal cancer treatment

Objective  The purpose of this prospective study was to examine the influence of the efforts for nationwide quality assurance of rectal cancer treatment. The study focuses on local recurrence and overall survival.