Current practices concerning the assessment and treatment of lateral lymph nodes in low rectal cancer:a survey among colorectal surgeons in The Netherlands

Purpose: The presence of lateral lymph nodes (LLNs) in patients with rectal cancer is not always acknowledged by the multidisciplinary team or treated in a standardized manner, and (inter)national guidelines concerning this topic are lacking. This study aimed to evaluate current practices regarding the assessment and treatment of LLNs in rectal cancer patients based on a survey among Dutch colorectal surgeons. Methods: An online survey was sent to members of the Dutch Association of Coloproctology. The survey consisted of 16 questions addressing their views on diagnosis, restaging, and treatment approaches for suspicious LLNs. Results: A total of 62 surgeons from 50 Dutch hospitals responded. For patients with a distal cT3/T4 rectal tumor; lateral lymph node compartments were routinely discussed during multidisciplinary meetings in only nine hospitals (18%). When defining what makes an LLN suspicious; the size threshold varied from &gt;3 to &gt;10 mm (median 7, SD 2), and MRI-based malignant features were mentioned by 29 surgeons (47%). Surgeons stated eight different treatment strategies as their designated treatment of suspicious LLNs. A total of 33 surgeons (53%) would add a radiotherapy boost to the neoadjuvant treatment. In cases of surgical resection; 12 surgeons (19%) would remove the suspicious LLN by ‘node-picking’ and 44 surgeons (71%) would perform a lateral lymph node dissection. The variation was not influenced by hospital type or surgeon's experience. Conclusion: These results highlight the vast variation in the awareness, definition of suspicious LLNs in rectal cancer, and different treatment approaches. International guidelines based on further research are warranted.</p

Current practices concerning the assessment and treatment of lateral lymph nodes in low rectal cancer:a survey among colorectal surgeons in The Netherlands

Purpose: The presence of lateral lymph nodes (LLNs) in patients with rectal cancer is not always acknowledged by the multidisciplinary team or treated in a standardized manner, and (inter)national guidelines concerning this topic are lacking. This study aimed to evaluate current practices regarding the assessment and treatment of LLNs in rectal cancer patients based on a survey among Dutch colorectal surgeons. Methods: An online survey was sent to members of the Dutch Association of Coloproctology. The survey consisted of 16 questions addressing their views on diagnosis, restaging, and treatment approaches for suspicious LLNs. Results: A total of 62 surgeons from 50 Dutch hospitals responded. For patients with a distal cT3/T4 rectal tumor; lateral lymph node compartments were routinely discussed during multidisciplinary meetings in only nine hospitals (18%). When defining what makes an LLN suspicious; the size threshold varied from &gt;3 to &gt;10 mm (median 7, SD 2), and MRI-based malignant features were mentioned by 29 surgeons (47%). Surgeons stated eight different treatment strategies as their designated treatment of suspicious LLNs. A total of 33 surgeons (53%) would add a radiotherapy boost to the neoadjuvant treatment. In cases of surgical resection; 12 surgeons (19%) would remove the suspicious LLN by ‘node-picking’ and 44 surgeons (71%) would perform a lateral lymph node dissection. The variation was not influenced by hospital type or surgeon's experience. Conclusion: These results highlight the vast variation in the awareness, definition of suspicious LLNs in rectal cancer, and different treatment approaches. International guidelines based on further research are warranted.</p

Quality of life in patients with a perineal hernia

Introduction: Patients who develop a perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection may experience discomfort during daily activities and urogenital dysfunction, but the impact on quality of life has never been formally assessed. Materials and methods: Patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer between 2014 and 2022 in two prospective multicenter trials were included. Primary outcome was defined as median overall scores or scores on functional and symptom scales of the following quality of life questionnaires: 5-level version of the 5-dimensional EuroQol, Short Form-36, and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire Colorectal cancer 29 and 30, Urogenital Distress Inventory-6, Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7. Results: Questionnaires were available in 27 patients with a perineal hernia and 62 patients without a perineal hernia. The 5-dimensional EuroQol score was significantly lower in patients with a perineal hernia (83 vs 87, p = 0.048), which implies a reduced level of functioning. The median scores of pain-specific domains were significantly worse in patients with a perineal hernia as measured by the SF-36 (78 vs. 90, p = 0.006), the EORTC-CR29 (17 vs. 11, p=&lt;0.001) and EORTC-C30 (17 vs. 0, p = 0.019). Also, significantly worse physical (73 vs. 100, p = 0.049) and emotional (83 vs. 100, p = 0.048) functioning based on EORTC-C30 was observed among those patients. Minimally important differences were found for role, physical and social functioning of the SF-36 and EORTC-C30. The urological function did not differ between the groups. Conclusion: A symptomatic perineal hernia can significantly worsen quality of life on several domains, indicating the severity of this complication.</p

Economic burden of pelvic sepsis after anastomotic leakage following rectal cancer surgery:A retrospective cost-of-illness analysis

Aim: Anastomotic leakage following rectal cancer surgery remains a challenging complication, with a nonhealing rate of approximately 50% at 1 year. Pelvic sepsis may require tertiary treatment that encompasses additional admissions, extensive surgery and other types of interventions. The aim of this study is to analyse the financial burden of pelvic sepsis in a tertiary hospital. Method: From 2010 until 2020, all patients referred to a tertiary centre for pelvic sepsis after low anterior resection for rectal cancer were prospectively registered and retrospectively reviewed. The cost analysis adhered to Dutch National Healthcare Institute guidelines and covered hospital-imposed medical costs from salvage surgery to the last registered intervention, adjusted for inflation and priced in euros.Results: This analysis included 126 patients, with an average total cost per patient of €31 131. Salvage surgery accounted for €21 326, with an additional €9805 for reinterventions and readmissions. Salvage surgery comprised nonrestorative surgery in 48% and restorative salvage surgery in the remaining cases. Length of hospital stay averaged 9.6 days on the general ward and 0.8 days in the intensive care unit. Common reinterventions included endoscopic vacuum sponge changes (n = 153), stoma closures (n = 59) and radiological abscess drainages (n = 51). Total costs did not differ significantly between nonrestorative surgery and restorative surgery (mean = €31 950 vs. €30 362, respectively; p = 0.893). Conclusion: Treating pelvic sepsis after rectal cancer resection in a tertiary hospital carries a substantial economic burden, averaging €31 131 per patient, and this work helps to quantify the potential economic impact of innovative care to reduce anastomotic leakage.</p

Does oncological outcome differ between restorative and nonrestorative low anterior resection in patients with primary rectal cancer?

Aim Nonrestorative low anterior resection (n-rLAR) (also known as low Hartmann's) is performed for rectal cancer when a poor functional outcome is anticipated or there have been problems when constructing the anastomosis. Compared with restorative LAR (rLAR), little oncological outcome data are available for n-rLAR. The aim of this study was to compare oncological outcomes between rLAR and n-rLAR for primary rectal cancer. Method This was a nationwide cross-sectional comparative study including all elective sphincter-saving LAR procedures for nonmetastatic primary rectal cancer performed in 2011 in 71 Dutch hospitals. Oncological outcomes of patients undergoing rLAR and n-rLAR were collected in 2015; the data were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the results compared using log-rank testing. Uni- and multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between the type of LAR and oncological outcome measures. Results A total of 1197 patients were analysed, of whom 892 (75%) underwent rLAR and 305 (25%) underwent n-rLAR. The 3-year local recurrence (LR) rate was 3% after rLAR and 8% after n-rLAR (P <0.001). The 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival rates were 77% (rLAR) vs 62% (n-rLAR) (P <0.001) and 90% (rLAR) vs 75% (n-rLAR) (P <0.001), respectively. In multivariable Cox analysis, n-rLAR was independently associated with a higher risk of LR (OR = 2.95) and worse overall survival (OR = 1.72). Conclusion This nationwide study revealed that n-rLAR for rectal cancer was associated with poorer oncological outcome than r-LAR. This is probably a noncausal relationship, and might reflect technical difficulties during low pelvic dissection in a subset of those patients, with oncological implications

Functional outcomes and quality of life following open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer patients:a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The standard surgical treatment for rectal cancer is total mesorectal excision (TME), which may negatively affect patients’ functional outcomes and quality of life (QoL). However, it is unclear how different TME techniques may impact patients’ functional outcomes and QoL. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated functional outcomes of urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning as well as QoL after open, laparoscopic (L-TME), robot-assisted (R-TME), and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME). Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis, based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis statement, were conducted (PROSPERO: CRD42021240851). A literature review was performed (sources: PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases; end-of-search date: September 1, 2023), and a quality assessment was performed using the Methodological index for non-randomized studies. A random-effects model was used to pool the data for the meta-analyses. Results: Nineteen studies were included, reporting on 2495 patients (88 open, 1171 L-TME, 995 R-TME, and 241 TaTME). Quantitative analyses comparing L-TME vs. R-TME showed no significant differences regarding urinary and sexual functioning, except for urinary function at three months post-surgery, which favoured R-TME (SMD [CI] –0.15 [− 0.24 to − 0.06], p = 0.02; n = 401). Qualitative analyses identified most studies did not find significant differences in urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning and QoL between different techniques.Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis highlight a significant gap in the literature concerning the evaluation of functional outcomes and QoL after TME for rectal cancer treatment. This study emphasizes the need for high-quality, randomized-controlled, and prospective cohort studies evaluating these outcomes. Based on the limited available evidence, this systematic review and meta-analysis suggests no significant differences in patients' urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning and their QoL across various TME techniques.</p