Helge E. Myrvold

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.

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.

Seven-year follow-up of a randomized clinical trial comparing proton-pump inhibition with surgical therapy for reflux oesophagitis.

This randomized clinical trial compared long‐term outcome after antireflux surgery with acid inhibition therapy in the treatment of chronic gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease (GORD).

Hiatus Hernia in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and radiologic examination were performed in 101 patients with symptoms strongly suggestive of gastroesophageal reflux (GER) disease. Hiatus hernia (HH) was found in 50 patients diagnosed by radiography or endoscopy, or both, in 22, 19, and 9 patients respectively. Severe endoscopic esophagitis (grades III and IV) was found more often (p less than 0.05) in the patients with HH than in those without. The same was true for the early positive timed acid perfusion tests (p less than 0.02). Furthermore, the patients with HH more often had reflux by the standard acid reflux test (42 of 50 versus 28 of 51; p less than 0.01), gastroesophageal scintigraphy (47 of 50 versus 40 of 51; p less than 0.05), and radiography (20 of 50 versus 2 of 51; p less than 0.001) than the patients without HH. The results show that severe GER disease can occur without an associated HH and indicate that patients with symptoms of GER disease and associated HH are likely to have a more severe GER disease than those without HH.

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.

Comparison of Outcomes Twelve Years After Antireflux Surgery or Omeprazole Maintenance Therapy for Reflux Esophagitis

BACKGROUND & AIMS It is important to evaluate the long-term effects of therapies for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). In a 12-year study, we compared the effects of therapy with omeprazole with those of antireflux surgery. METHODS This open, parallel group study included 310 patients with esophagitis enrolled from outpatient clinics in Nordic countries. Of the 155 patients randomly assigned to each arm of the study, 154 received omeprazole (1 withdrew before therapy began), and 144 received surgery (11 withdrew before surgery). In patients who remained in remission after treatment, post-fundoplication complaints, other symptoms, and safety variables were assessed. RESULTS Of the patients enrolled in the study, 71 who were given omeprazole (46%) and 53 treated with surgery (37%) were followed for a 12-year follow-up period. At this time point, 53% of patients who underwent surgery remained in continuous remission, compared with 45% of patients given omeprazole with a dose adjustment (P = .022) and 40% without dose adjustment (P = .002). In addition, 38% of surgical patients required a change in therapeutic strategy (eg, to medical therapy or another operation), compared with 15% of those on omeprazole. Heartburn and regurgitation were significantly more common in patients given omeprazole, whereas dysphagia, rectal flatulence, and the inability to belch or vomit were significantly more common in surgical patients. The therapies were otherwise well-tolerated. CONCLUSIONS As long-term therapeutic strategies for chronic GERD, surgery and omeprazole are effective and well-tolerated. Antireflux surgery is superior to omeprazole in controlling overall disease manifestations, but post-fundoplication complaints continue after surgery.

Changes of gastric mucosal architecture during long‐term omeprazole therapy: results of a randomized clinical trial

Background  The impact of long‐term acid suppression on the gastric mucosa remains controversial.

Postoperative morbidity and recurrence after local excision of rectal adenomas and rectal cancer by transanal endoscopic microsurgery

Objective  Tumours in the middle and upper part of the rectum are not easy accessible to local excision. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) has been recommended for excision of sessile adenomas in the middle and upper part of the rectum, and for small cancers in patients not fit for major surgery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate postoperative morbidity and local recurrence after TEM.