John R. T. Monson

Preoperative radiotherapy versus selective postoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer (MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG C016): a multicentre, randomised trial

Summary Background Preoperative or postoperative radiotherapy reduces the risk of local recurrence in patients with operable rectal cancer. However, improvements in surgery and histopathological assessment mean that the role of radiotherapy needs to be reassessed. We compared short-course preoperative radiotherapy versus initial surgery with selective postoperative chemoradiotherapy. Methods We undertook a randomised trial in 80 centres in four countries. 1350 patients with operable adenocarcinoma of the rectum were randomly assigned, by a minimisation procedure, to short-course preoperative radiotherapy (25 Gy in five fractions; n=674) or to initial surgery with selective postoperative chemoradiotherapy (45 Gy in 25 fractions with concurrent 5-fluorouracil) restricted to patients with involvement of the circumferential resection margin (n=676). The primary outcome measure was local recurrence. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN 28785842. Findings At the time of analysis, which included all participants, 330 patients had died (157 preoperative radiotherapy group vs 173 selective postoperative chemoradiotherapy), and median follow-up of surviving patients was 4 years. 99 patients had developed local recurrence (27 preoperative radiotherapy vs 72 selective postoperative chemoradiotherapy). We noted a reduction of 61% in the relative risk of local recurrence for patients receiving preoperative radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0·39, 95% CI 0·27–0·58, p<0·0001), and an absolute difference at 3 years of 6·2% (95% CI 5·3–7·1) (4·4% preoperative radiotherapy vs 10·6% selective postoperative chemoradiotherapy). We recorded a relative improvement in disease-free survival of 24% for patients receiving preoperative radiotherapy (HR 0·76, 95% CI 0·62–0·94, p=0·013), and an absolute difference at 3 years of 6·0% (95% CI 5·3–6·8) (77·5% vs 71·5%). Overall survival did not differ between the groups (HR 0·91, 95% CI 0·73–1·13, p=0·40). Interpretation Taken with results from other randomised trials, our findings provide convincing and consistent evidence that short-course preoperative radiotherapy is an effective treatment for patients with operable rectal cancer. Funding Medical Research Council (UK) and the National Cancer Institute of Canada.

Effect of the plane of surgery achieved on local recurrence in patients with operable rectal cancer: a prospective study using data from the MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG CO16 randomised clinical trial

Summary Background Local recurrence rates in operable rectal cancer are improved by radiotherapy (with or without chemotherapy) and surgical techniques such as total mesorectal excision. However, the contributions of surgery and radiotherapy to outcomes are unclear. We assessed the effect of the involvement of the circumferential resection margin and the plane of surgery achieved. Methods In this prospective study, the plane of surgery achieved and the involvement of the circumferential resection margin were assessed by local pathologists, using a standard pathological protocol in 1156 patients with operable rectal cancer from the CR07 and NCIC-CTG CO16 trial, which compared short-course (5 days) preoperative radiotherapy and selective postoperative chemoradiotherapy, between March, 1998, and August, 2005. All analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN 28785842. Findings 128 patients (11%) had involvement of the circumferential resection margin, and the plane of surgery achieved was classified as good (mesorectal) in 604 (52%), intermediate (intramesorectal) in 398 (34%), and poor (muscularis propria plane) in 154 (13%). We found that both a negative circumferential resection margin and a superior plane of surgery achieved were associated with low local recurrence rates. Hazard ratio (HR) was 0·32 (95% CI 0·16–0·63, p=0·0011) with 3-year local recurrence rates of 6% (5–8%) and 17% (10–26%) for patients who were negative and positive for circumferential resection margin, respectively. For plane of surgery achieved, HRs for mesorectal and intramesorectal groups compared with the muscularis propria group were 0·32 (0·16–0·64) and 0·48 (0·25–0·93), respectively. At 3 years, the estimated local recurrence rates were 4% (3–6%) for mesorectal, 7% (5–11%) for intramesorectal, and 13% (8–21%) for muscularis propria groups. The benefit of short-course preoperative radiotherapy did not differ in the three plane of surgery groups (p=0·30 for trend). Patients in the short-course preoperative radiotherapy group who had a resection in the mesorectal plane had a 3-year local recurrence rate of only 1%. Interpretation In rectal cancer, the plane of surgery achieved is an important prognostic factor for local recurrence. Short-course preoperative radiotherapy reduced the rate of local recurrence for all three plane of surgery groups, almost abolishing local recurrence in short-course preoperative radiotherapy patients who had a resection in the mesorectal plane. The plane of surgery achieved should therefore be assessed and reported routinely. Funding Medical Research Council (UK) and the National Cancer Institute of Canada.

Stapling procedure for haemorrhoids versus Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy: randomised controlled trial

Summary Background Surgical haemorrhoidectomy has a reputation for being a painful procedure for a fairly benign disorder. The circular transanal stapled technique for the treatment of haemorrhoids has the potential to offer a less painful rectal procedure in place of ablative perianal surgery. We compared the short-term outcome of the circular stapled procedure for haemorrhoids with current standard surgery in a randomised controlled trial. Methods 40 patients admitted for surgical treatment of prolapsing haemorrhoids were randomly assigned to Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy (n=20) or the circular stapled procedure. Under general anaesthesia patients underwent standardised diathermy excision haemorrhoidectomy or had a circumferential doughnut of rectal mucosa and submucosa above the dentate line excised and closed with a standard circular end-to-end stapling device. All patients received standardised preoperative and postoperative analgesic and laxative regimens. Patients completed linear analogue pain charts each day and were interviewed at 1, 3, and 6–10 weeks postoperatively. Summary measures of average pain experience were calculated from 10 cm linear analogue pain scores and were used as the primary outcome measure. Findings The stapled group had shorter anaesthesia time (median 18 [range 9–25] vs 22 [15–35] mins). Average pain in the stapled group was significantly lower than it was in the Milligan-Morgan group (2·1 [0·2–7·6] vs 6·5 [3·1–8·5], 95·1% CI difference medians 1·9–4·7, p U test). Average pain relative to what the patient expected was also significantly less in the stapled group (−2·8 [−4·4 to 1·3] vs 0·7 [−1·8 to 3·4]. Hospital stay and time to first bowel motion were not significantly different between groups. Return to normal activity was significantly shorter in the stapled group (17 [3–60] vs 34 [14–90]. Early and late complications, patient-assessed symptom control, and functional outcome appear similar after short-term follow-up Interpretation The circular stapled technique offers a significantly less painful alternative to Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy and is associated with an earlier return to normal activity. Early symptom control and functional outcome appear similar. However, long-term symptomatic and functional outcome need further study.

Reduction in adhesive small-bowel obstruction by Seprafilm adhesion barrier after intestinal resection.

IntroductionAlthough Seprafilm® has been demonstrated to reduce adhesion formation, it is not known whether its usage would translate into a reduction in adhesive small-bowel obstruction.MethodsThis was a prospective, randomized, multicenter, multinational, single-blind, controlled study. This report focuses on those patients who underwent intestinal resection (n = 1,701). Before closure of the abdomen, patients were randomized to receive Seprafilm® or no treatment. Seprafilm® was applied to adhesiogenic tissues throughout the abdomen. The incidence and type of bowel obstruction was compared between the two groups. Time to first adhesive small-bowel obstruction was compared during the course of the study by using survival analysis methods. The mean follow-up time for the occurrence of adhesive small-bowel obstruction was 3.5 years.ResultsThere was no difference between the treatment and control group in overall rate of bowel obstruction. The incidence of adhesive small-bowel obstruction requiring reoperation was significantly lower for Seprafilm® patients compared with no-treatment patients: 1.8 vs. 3.4 percent (P < 0.05). This finding represents an absolute reduction in adhesive small-bowel obstruction requiring reoperation of 1.6 percent and a relative reduction of 47 percent. In addition, a stepwise multivariate analysis indicated that the use of Seprafilm® was the only predictive factor for reducing adhesive small-bowel obstruction requiring reoperation. In both groups, 50 percent of first adhesive small-bowel obstruction episodes occurred within 6 months after the initial surgery with nearly 30 percent occurring within the first 30 days. Additionally no first adhesive small-bowel obstruction events were reported in Years 4 and 5 of follow-up.ConclusionsThe overall bowel obstruction rate was unchanged; however, adhesive small-bowel obstruction requiring reoperation was significantly reduced by the use of Seprafilm®, which was the only factor that predicted this outcome.

Effect of Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection vs Open Resection of Stage II or III Rectal Cancer on Pathologic Outcomes: The ACOSOG Z6051 Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE Evidence about the efficacy of laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer is incomplete, particularly for patients with more advanced-stage disease. OBJECTIVE To determine whether laparoscopic resection is noninferior to open resection, as determined by gross pathologic and histologic evaluation of the resected proctectomy specimen. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A multicenter, balanced, noninferiority, randomized trial enrolled patients between October 2008 and September 2013. The trial was conducted by credentialed surgeons from 35 institutions in the United States and Canada. A total of 486 patients with clinical stage II or III rectal cancer within 12 cm of the anal verge were randomized after completion of neoadjuvant therapy to laparoscopic or open resection. INTERVENTIONS Standard laparoscopic and open approaches were performed by the credentialed surgeons. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome assessing efficacy was a composite of circumferential radial margin greater than 1 mm, distal margin without tumor, and completeness of total mesorectal excision. A 6% noninferiority margin was chosen according to clinical relevance estimation. RESULTS Two hundred forty patients with laparoscopic resection and 222 with open resection were evaluable for analysis of the 486 enrolled. Successful resection occurred in 81.7% of laparoscopic resection cases (95% CI, 76.8%-86.6%) and 86.9% of open resection cases (95% CI, 82.5%-91.4%) and did not support noninferiority (difference, -5.3%; 1-sided 95% CI, -10.8% to ∞; P for noninferiority = .41). Patients underwent low anterior resection (76.7%) or abdominoperineal resection (23.3%). Conversion to open resection occurred in 11.3% of patients. Operative time was significantly longer for laparoscopic resection (mean, 266.2 vs 220.6 minutes; mean difference, 45.5 minutes; 95% CI, 27.7-63.4; P < .001). Length of stay (7.3 vs 7.0 days; mean difference, 0.3 days; 95% CI, -0.6 to 1.1), readmission within 30 days (3.3% vs 4.1%; difference, -0.7%; 95% CI, -4.2% to 2.7%), and severe complications (22.5% vs 22.1%; difference, 0.4%; 95% CI, -4.2% to 2.7%) did not differ significantly. Quality of the total mesorectal excision specimen in 462 operated and analyzed surgeries was complete (77%) and nearly complete (16.5%) in 93.5% of the cases. Negative circumferential radial margin was observed in 90% of the overall group (87.9% laparoscopic resection and 92.3% open resection; P = .11). Distal margin result was negative in more than 98% of patients irrespective of type of surgery (P = .91). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with stage II or III rectal cancer, the use of laparoscopic resection compared with open resection failed to meet the criterion for noninferiority for pathologic outcomes. Pending clinical oncologic outcomes, the findings do not support the use of laparoscopic resection in these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00726622.

A predictive model for local recurrence after transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal cancer.

The outcome of local excision of early rectal cancer using transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) lacks consensus. Screening has substantially increased the early diagnosis of tumours. Patients need local treatments that are oncologically equivalent to radical surgery but safer and functionally superior.

Evaluation of quality of life after laparoscopic surgery: evidence-based guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery

BackgroundMeasuring health-related quality of life (QoL) after surgery is essential for decision making by patients, surgeons, and payers. The aim of this consensus conference was twofold. First, it was to determine for which diseases endoscopic surgery results in better postoperative QoL than open surgery. Second, it was to recommend QoL instruments for clinical research.MethodsAn expert panel selected 12 conditions in which QoL and endoscopic surgery are important. For each condition, studies comparing endoscopic and open surgery in terms of QoL were identified. The expert panel reached consensus on the relative benefits of endoscopic surgery and recommended generic and disease-specific QoL instruments for use in clinical research.ResultsRandomized trials indicate that QoL improves earlier after endoscopic than open surgery for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), cholecystolithiasis, colorectal cancer, inguinal hernia, obesity (gastric bypass), and uterine disorders that require hysterectomy. For spleen, prostate, malignant kidney, benign colorectal, and benign non-GERD esophageal diseases, evidence from nonrandomized trials supports the use of laparoscopic surgery. However, many studies failed to collect long-term results, used nonvalidated questionnaires, or measured QoL components only incompletely. The following QoL instruments can be recommended: for benign esophageal and gallbladder disease, the GIQLI or the QOLRAD together with SF-36 or the PGWB; for obesity surgery, the IWQOL-Lite with the SF-36; for colorectal cancer, the FACT-C or the EORTC QLQ-C30/CR38; for inguinal and renal surgery, the VAS for pain with the SF-36 (or the EORTC QLQ-C30 in case of malignancy); and after hysterectomy, the SF-36 together with an evaluation of urinary and sexual function.ConclusionsLaparoscopic surgery provides better postoperative QoL in many clinical situations. Researchers would improve the quality of future studies by using validated QoL instruments such as those recommended here.

Edrecolomab alone or in combination with fluorouracil and folinic acid in the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer: a randomised study

BACKGROUND Edrecolomab is a murine monoclonal antibody to the cell-surface glycoprotein 17-1A, which is expressed on epithelial tissues and on various carcinomas. Preliminary data suggested that it might be of use in the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected stage III colon cancer. We did a randomised trial in 27 countries to determine the effect of adding edrecolomab to the combination of fluorouracil and folinic acid in these patients. METHODS After surgery, 2761 patients were randomly assigned edrecolomab plus fluorouracil-folinic acid (combination therapy [n=912]); fluorouracil-folinic acid alone (chemotherapy [n=927]); or edrecolomab alone (edrecolomab monotherapy [n=922]). Patients were assessed for survival and disease recurrence after surgery. The primary endpoint tested the hypothesis that combination therapy improved overall survival relative to chemotherapy. The key secondary endpoint was to test whether edrecolomab monotherapy was non-inferior to chemotherapy in terms of disease-free survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS Median follow-up time was 26 months (IQR 20-36). 3-year overall survival on combination therapy was no different from that on chemotherapy (74.7% vs 76.1%, hazard ratio 0.94 [95% CI 0.76-1.15], p=0.53). Disease-free survival was significantly lower on edrecolomab monotherapy than on chemotherapy (53.0% vs 65.5%, 0.62 [0.53-0.73], p<0.0001). Hypersensitivity reactions occurred in 452 (25%) patients receiving edrecolomab, causing treatment discontinuation in 71 (4%). The addition of edrecolomab to chemotherapy did not increase neutropenia, diarrhoea, or mucositis. INTERPRETATION The addition of edrecolomab to fluorouracil and folinic acid in the adjuvant treatment of resected stage III colon cancer does not improve overall or disease-free survival, and edrecolomab monotherapy is associated with significantly shorter overall and disease-free survival than fluorouracil and folinic acid and is therefore an inferior treatment option. Edrecolomab is well tolerated and its addition to fluorouracil and folinic acid does not increase the toxicity of chemotherapy.

Laparoscopic resection of colon Cancer: consensus of the European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES).

BackgroundThe European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) initiated a consensus development conference on the laparoscopic resection of colon cancer during the annual congress in Lisbon, Portugal, in June 2002.MethodsA systematic review of the current literature was combined with the opinions, of experts in the field of colon cancer surgery to formulate evidence-based statements and recommendations on the laparoscopic resection of colon cancer.ResultsAdvanced age, obesity, and previous abdominal operations are not considered absolute contraindications for laparoscopic colon cancer surgery. The most common cause for conversion is the presence of bulky or invasive tumors. Laparoscopic operation takes longer to perform than the open counterpart, but the outcome is similar in terms of specimen size and pathological examination. Immediate postoperative morbidity and mortality are comparable for laparoscopic and open colonic cancer surgery. The laparoscopically operated patients had less postoperative pain, better-preserved pulmonary function, earlier restoration of gastrointestinal function, and an earlier discharge from the hospital. The postoperative stress response is lower after laparoscopic colectomy. The incidence of port site metastases is <1%. Survival after laparoscopic resection of colon cancer appears to be at least equal to survival after open resection. The costs of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer are higher than those for open surgery.ConclusionLaparoscopic resection of colon cancer is a safe and feasible procedure that improves short-term outcome. Results regarding the long-term survival of patients enrolled in large multicenter trials will determine its role in general surgery.

Total mesorectal excision: Assessment of the laparoscopic approach

PURPOSE: Total mesorectal excision offers the lowest reported rates of local recurrence for rectal cancer; however, the ability to perform total mesorectal excision laparoscopically remains unproven. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and adequacy of a totally laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. METHODS: A prospective review of all patients undergoing laparoscopic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer by a single surgeon was undertaken. These were compared with a control group undergoing open rectal resections by another colorectal consultant in the unit (n=22). Comparison of total specimen length, longitudinal and radial excision margins, and lymph node yield was made between groups. RESULTS: Of 42 laparoscopic-assisted rectal resections attempted, 14 (33 percent) were converted to open procedures and six had their dissection completed open. One resection was considered noncurative. Twenty-one total mesorectal excisions (50 percent) were completed totally laparoscopically. No significant difference was detected between groups for specimen length, radial margin, or lymph node yield. Longitudinal margin of excision was longer in the laparoscopic group (4 (3.5–5)vs. 2.5 (1.05–3.5) cm;P=0.02, Mann-Whitney). Operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (180 (168–218)vs. 125 (104–144) minutes;P=0.003, Mann-Whitney). Data are medians (inter-quartile ranges). Four patients in the laparoscopic-assisted group had clinical anastomotic leakagevs. one in the open group (P=0.329, Fishers exact test). At median follow-up of 38 (range, 6–53) months, one local recurrence had occurred in each group and crude mortality rates were 29 and 23 percent in the laparoscopic-assisted and open groups, respectively (P=0.736, Fishers exact test). CONCLUSION: Totally laparoscopic excision of the mesorectum is feasible in 50 percent of patients and where possible yields histologic parameters comparable to open surgery. Early survival and recurrence figures also appear to be comparable.