Quentin Denost

Low rectal cancer: classification and standardization of surgery.

BACKGROUND: Surgical treatment of low rectal cancer is controversial, and one of the reasons is the lack of definition and standardization of surgery in low rectal cancer. OBJECTIVE: We classified low rectal cancers in 4 groups with the aim of demonstrating that most patients with low rectal cancer can receive conservative surgery without compromising oncologic outcome. DESIGN: Patients with low rectal cancer <6 cm from anal verge were defined in 4 groups: type I (supra-anal tumors: >1 cm from anal ring) had coloanal anastomosis, type II (juxta-anal tumors: <1 cm from anal ring) had partial intersphincteric resection, type III (intra-anal tumors: internal anal sphincter invasion) had total intersphincteric resection, and type IV (transanal tumors: external anal sphincter invasion) had abdominoperineal resection. Patients with ultra-low sphincter-preserving surgery (types II-III) were compared with those with conventional sphincter-preserving surgery (type I). OUTCOME MEASURES: Postoperative mortality, morbidity, surgical margins, local and distant recurrence, and survival were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 404 patients with low rectal cancer, 135 were type I, 131 type II, 55 type III, and 83 type IV. There was no difference in local recurrence (5% to 9% vs 6%), distant recurrence (23% vs 23%), and disease-free survival (70%-73% vs 68%) at 5 years between ultra-low (types II-III) and conventional (type I) sphincter-preserving surgery. Predictive factors of survival were tumor stage and R1 resection but not the type of tumor or type of surgery. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by the retrospective analysis of a database, obtained from a single institution and covering a 16-year period. CONCLUSION: Classification of low rectal cancers and standardization of surgery permitted sphincter-preserving surgery in 79% of patients with low rectal cancer without compromising oncologic outcome. This new surgical classification should be used to standardize surgery and increase sphincter-preserving surgery in low rectal cancer.

Perineal transanal approach: a new standard for laparoscopic sphincter-saving resection in low rectal cancer, a randomized trial.

Background:Laparoscopic sphincter preservation for low rectal cancer is challenging because of the high risk of positive circumferential resection margin. We hypothesized that perineal dissection of the distal rectum may improve quality of surgery, compared with the conventional abdominal dissection. Methods:Between 2008 and 2012, 100 patients with low rectal cancer (< 6 cm from the anal verge) suitable for sphincter preservation were randomized between perineal and abdominal low rectal dissection. Surgery included laparoscopic mobilization of the left colon with high rectal dissection. Distal rectal dissection was performed laparoscopically in the abdominal group and transanally in the perineal group. The primary endpoint was quality of surgery (circumferential resection margin, mesorectum grade, and lymph nodes). Secondary end points were morbidity and conversion. Results:The rate of positive circumferential resection margin decreased significantly after perineal compared with abdominal low rectal dissection, 4% versus 18% (P = 0.025). The mesorectum grade and the number of lymph nodes analyzed did not differ between the 2 groups. There was no difference in surgical morbidity (12% vs 14%; P = 0.766) and conversion (4% vs 10%; P = 0.436) between perineal and abdominal rectal dissection. Multivariate analysis showed that abdominal rectal dissection was the only independent factor of positive circumferential resection margin (odds ratio = 5.25; 95% confidence interval: 1.03–26.70; P = 0.046). Conclusions:Perineal rectal dissection reduces the risk of positive circumferential resection margin, as compared with the conventional abdominal dissection in low rectal cancer. This suggests the perineal rectal dissection as a new standard in laparoscopic sphincter-saving resection for low rectal cancer.

Risk factors for fecal incontinence after intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Restoration of bowel continuity is a major goal after surgical treatment of rectal cancer. Intersphincteric resection allows sphincter preservation in low rectal cancer but may have poor functional results, including frequent bowel movements, urgency, and incontinence. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate long-term functional outcome after intersphincteric resection to identify factors predictive of good continence. DESIGN: Descriptive observational study. SETTING: Follow-up of surgery in tertiary care university hospital. PATIENTS: Eligible patients were without recurrence 1 year or more after surgery for low rectal cancer. INTERVENTION: Intersphincteric resection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Bowel function was assessed with a standardized questionnaire sent to patients. Functional outcome was considered as good if the Wexner score was 10 or less. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were used to evaluate impact of age, gender, body mass index, tumor stage, tumor location, distance of the tumor from the anal verge and from the anal ring, type of surgery, colonic pouch, height of the anastomosis, pelvic sepsis, and preoperative radiotherapy on functional outcome. RESULTS: Of 125 eligible patients, 101 responded to the questionnaire. Median follow-up was 51 (range, 13–167) months. In multivariate analyses, the only independent predictors of good continence were distance of the tumor greater than 1 cm from the anal ring (OR, 5.88; 95% CI, 1.75–19.80; P = .004) and anastomoses higher than 2 cm above the anal verge (OR, 6.59; 95% CI, 1.12–38.67; P = .037). LIMITATIONS: The study is limited by its retrospective, observational design and potential bias due to possible differences between those who responded to the questionnaire and those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Patient characteristics do not appear to influence functional outcome at long-term follow-up after intersphincteric resection. The risk of fecal incontinence depends mainly on tumor level and height of the anastomosis.

Organ preservation for rectal cancer (GRECCAR 2): a prospective, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Organ preservation is a concept proposed for patients with rectal cancer after a good clinical response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, to potentially avoid morbidity and side-effects of rectal excision. The objective of this study was to compare local excision and total mesorectal excision in patients with a good response after chemoradiotherapy for lower rectal cancer. METHODS We did a prospective, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial at 15 tertiary centres in France that were experts in the treatment of rectal cancer. Patients aged 18 years and older with stage T2T3 lower rectal carcinoma, of maximum size 4 cm, who had a good clinical response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (residual tumour ≤2 cm) were centrally randomly assigned by the surgeon before surgery to either local excision or total mesorectal excision surgery. Randomisation, which was done via the internet, was not stratified and used permuted blocks of size eight. In the local excision group, a completion total mesorectal excision was required if tumour stage was ypT2-3. The primary endpoint was a composite outcome of death, recurrence, morbidity, and side-effects at 2 years after surgery, to show superiority of local excision over total mesorectal excision in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population (expected proportions of patients having at least one event were 25% vs 60% for superiority). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00427375. FINDINGS From March 1, 2007, to Sept 24, 2012, 186 patients received chemoradiotherapy and were enrolled in the study. 148 good clinical responders were randomly assigned to treatment, three were excluded (because they had metastatic disease, tumour >8 cm from anal verge, and withdrew consent), and 145 were analysed: 74 in the local excision group and 71 in the total mesorectal excision group. In the local excision group, 26 patients had a completion total mesorectal excision. At 2 years in the modified ITT population, one or more events from the composite primary outcome occurred in 41 (56%) of 73 patients in the local excision group and 33 (48%) of 69 in the total mesorectal excision group (odds ratio 1·33, 95% CI 0·62-2·86; p=0·43). In the modified ITT analysis, there was no difference between the groups in all components of the composite outcome, and superiority was not shown for local excision over total mesorectal excision. INTERPRETATION We failed to show superiority of local excision over total mesorectal excision, because many patients in the local excision group received a completion total mesorectal excision that probably increased morbidity and side-effects, and compromised the potential advantages of local excision. Better patient selection to avoid unnecessary completion total mesorectal excision could improve the strategy. FUNDING National Cancer Institute of France, Sanofi, Roche Pharma.

To Drain or Not to Drain Infraperitoneal Anastomosis After Rectal Excision for Cancer: The GRECCAR 5 Randomized Trial.

Objective: To assess the effect of pelvic drainage after rectal surgery for cancer. Background: Pelvic sepsis is one of the major complications after rectal excision for rectal cancer. Although many studies have confirmed infectiveness of drainage after colectomy, there is still a controversy after rectal surgery. Methods: This multicenter randomized trial with 2 parallel arms (drain vs no drain) was performed between 2011 and 2014. Primary endpoint was postoperative pelvic sepsis within 30 postoperative days, including anastomotic leakage, pelvic abscess, and peritonitis. Secondary endpoints were overall morbidity and mortality, rate of reoperation, length of hospital stay, and rate of stoma closure at 6 months. Results: A total of 494 patients were randomized, 25 did not meet the criteria and 469 were analyzed: 236 with drain and 233 without. The anastomotic height was 3.5 ± 1.9 cm from the anal verge. The rate of pelvic sepsis was 17.1% (80/469) and was similar between drain and no drain: 16.1% versus 18.0% (P = 0.58). There was no difference of surgical morbidity (18.7% vs 25.3%; P = 0.83), rate of reoperation (16.6% vs 21.0%; P = 0.22), length of hospital stay (12.2 vs 12.2; P = 0.99) and rate of stoma closure (80.1% vs 77.3%; P = 0.53) between groups. Absence of colonic pouch was the only independent factor of pelvic sepsis (odds ratio = 1.757; 95% confidence interval 1.078–2.864; P = 0.024). Conclusions: This randomized trial suggests that the use of a pelvic drain after rectal excision for rectal cancer did not confer any benefit to the patient.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Gastric Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: What Is the Impact on Postoperative Outcome and Oncologic Results?

OBJECTIVES The aim of the study was to compare the postoperative and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (gGISTs). BACKGROUND The feasibility of the laparoscopic approach for gGIST resection has been demonstrated; however, its impact on outcomes, particularly its oncologic safety for tumors greater than 5 cm, remains unknown. METHODS Among 1413 patients treated for a GIST in 61 European centers between 2001 and 2013, patients who underwent primary resection for a gGIST smaller than 20 cm (N = 666), by either laparoscopy (group L, n = 282) or open surgery (group O, n = 384), were compared. Multivariable analyses and propensity score matching were used to compensate for differences in baseline characteristics. RESULTS In-hospital mortality and morbidity rates in groups L and O were 0.4% versus 2.1% (P = 0.086) and 11.3% vs 19.5% (P = 0.004), respectively. Laparoscopic resection was independently protective against in-hospital morbidity (odds ratio 0.54, P = 0.014). The rate of R0 resection was 95.7% in group L and 92.7% in group O (P = 0.103). After 1:1 propensity score matching (n = 224), the groups were comparable according to age, sex, tumor location and size, mitotic index, American Society of Anesthesiology score, and the extent of surgical resection. After adjustment for BMI, overall morbidity (10.3% vs 19.6%; P = 0.005), surgical morbidity (4.9% vs 9.8%; P = 0.048), and medical morbidity (6.2% vs 13.4%; P = 0.01) were significantly lower in group L. Five-year recurrence-free survival was significantly better in group L (91.7% vs 85.2%; P = 0.011). In tumors greater than 5 cm, in-hospital morbidity and 5-year recurrence-free survival were similar between the groups (P = 0.255 and P = 0.423, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Laparoscopic resection for gGISTs is associated with favorable short-term outcomes without compromising oncologic results.

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with coloanal anastomosis for rectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE Oncologic and functional outcomes were compared between transanal and transabdominal specimen extraction after laparoscopic coloanal anastomosis for rectal cancer. BACKGROUND Laparoscopic coloanal anastomosis is an attractive new surgical option in patients with low rectal cancer because laparotomy is not necessary due to transanal specimen extraction. Risks of tumor spillage and fecal incontinence induced by transanal extraction are not known. METHODS Between 2000 and 2010, 220 patients with low rectal cancer underwent laparoscopic rectal excision with hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis. The rectal specimen was extracted transanally in 122 patients and transabdominally in 98 patients. End points were circumferential resection margin, mesorectal grade, local recurrence, survival, and functional outcome. RESULTS The mortality rate was 0.5% and surgical morbidity rate was 17%. The rate of positive circumferential resection margin was 9% and the mesorectum was graded complete in 79%, subcomplete in 12%, and incomplete in 9%. After a follow-up of 51 months (range, 1-151), the local recurrence rate was 4% and overall survival and disease-free survival rates were 83% and 70% at 5 years, respectively. The continence score was 6 (range, 0-20). There was no difference of mortality rate, morbidity rate, circumferential resection margin, mesorectal grade, local recurrence (4% vs 5%, P = 0.98), and disease-free survival rate (72% vs 68%, P = 0.63) between transanal and transabdominal extraction groups. Continence score was also similar (6 vs 6, P = 0.92). CONCLUSIONS Transanal extraction of the rectal specimen did not compromise oncologic and functional outcome after laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer and seems as a safe option to preserve the abdominal wall.

Pancreaticoduodenectomy following chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to assess oncological outcomes in patients treated with pancreaticoduodenectomy for advanced pancreatic head adenocarcinoma after preoperative chemoradiotherapy and to compare these with outcomes in patients treated with surgery alone. METHODS From 2004 to 2009, patients treated with pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma were included in a retrospective comparative study. Patients with locally advanced adenocarcinoma were treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT group) and were compared with those treated with surgery alone (SURG group). RESULTS A total of 111 patients were included; these comprised 72 patients in the SURG group and 39 patients in the CRT group. The median follow-up was 21 months. Patients in the CRT group presented with a more advanced tumoral status. Microscopic resection rates were similar in both groups, but nodal status and vascular or lymphatic emboli were lower in the CRT group. At 3 years, the SURG and CRT groups exhibited similar overall (36% and 51%, respectively) and disease-free (35% and 37%, respectively) survival (P = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS In patients with advanced pancreatic head adenocarcinoma, a good response after preoperative chemoradiotherapy results in a survival rate similar to that in patients treated with surgery alone in whom the initial prognosis is better.

Is there still a need for prophylactic intra-abdominal drainage in elective major gastro-intestinal surgery?

Prophylactic drainage of the abdominal cavity after gastro-intestinal surgery is widely used. The rationale is that intra-abdominal drainage enhances early detection of complications (gastro-intestinal leakage, hemorrhage, bile leak), prevents collection of fluid or pus, reduces morbidity and mortality, and decreases the duration of hospital stay. However, dogmatic attitudes favoring systematic drain placement should be questioned. The aim of this review was to evaluate the evidence supporting systematic use of prophylactic abdominal drainage following gastrectomy, pancreatectomy, liver resection, and rectal resection. Based on this review of the literature: (i) there was no evidence in favor of intra-peritoneal drainage following total or sub-total gastrectomy with respect to morbidity-mortality, nor was it helpful in the diagnosis or management of leakage, however the level of evidence is low, (ii) following pancreatic resection, data are conflicting but, overall, suggest that the absence of drainage is prejudicial, and support the notion that short-term drainage is better than long-term drainage, (iii) after liver resection without hepatico-intestinal anastomosis, high level evidence supports that there is no need for abdominal drainage, and (iv) following rectal resection, data are insufficient to establish recommendations. However, results from the French multicenter randomized controlled trial GRECCAR5 (NCT01269567) should provide new evidence this coming year. Accumulating data support that systematic drainage of the abdominal cavity in digestive surgery is a non-beneficial and obsolete practice, except following pancreatectomy where the consensus appears to indicate the usefulness of short-term drainage. While the level of evidence is high for liver resections, new randomized controlled trials are awaited regarding gastric, pancreatic and rectal surgery.

Colorectal tissue engineering: A comparative study between porcine small intestinal submucosa (SIS) and chitosan hydrogel patches

OBJECTIVE Tissue engineering may provide new operative tools for colorectal surgery in elective indications. The aim of this study was to define a suitable bioscaffold for colorectal tissue engineering. METHODS We compared 2 bioscaffolds with in vitro and in vivo experiments: porcine small intestinal submucosa (SIS) versus chitosan hydrogel matrix. We assessed nontoxicity of the scaffold in vitro by using human adipose-derived stem cells (hADSC). In vivo, a 1 × 2-cm colonic wall defect was created in 16 rabbits. Animals were divided randomly into 2 groups according to the graft used, SIS or chitosan hydrogel. Graft area was explanted at 4 and 8 weeks. The end points of in vivo experiments were technical feasibility, behavior of the scaffold, in situ putative inflammatory effect, and the quality of tissue regeneration, in particular smooth muscle layer regeneration. RESULTS In vitro, hADSC attachment and proliferation occurred on both scaffolds without a substantial difference. After proliferation, hADSCs kept their mesenchymal stem cell characteristics. In vivo, one animal died in each group. Eight weeks after implantation, the chitosan scaffold allowed better wound healing compared with the SIS scaffold, with more effective control of inflammatory activity and an integral regeneration of the colonic wall including the smooth muscle cell layer. CONCLUSION The outcomes of in vitro experiments did not differ greatly between the 2 groups. Macroscopic and histologic findings, however, revealed better wound healing of the colonic wall in the chitosan group suggesting that the chitosan hydrogel could serve as a better scaffold for colorectal tissue engineering.