Chemoradiation therapy for rectal cancer in the distal rectum followed by organ-sparing transanal endoscopic microsurgery (CARTS study)

BackgroundThis prospective multicentre study was performed to quantify the number of patients with minimal residual disease (ypT0-1) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) for rectal cancer. MethodsPatients with clinically staged T1-3N0 distal rectal cancer were treated with long-course chemoradiotherapy. Clinical response was evaluated 6-8 weeks later and TEM performed. Total mesorectal excision was advocated in patients with residual disease (ypT2 or more). ResultsThe clinical stage was cT1N0 in ten patients, cT2N0 in 29 and cT3N0 in 16 patients. Chemoradiotherapy-related complications of at least grade 3 occurred in 23 of 55 patients, with two deaths from toxicity, and two patients did not have TEM or major surgery. Among 47 patients who had TEM, ypT0-1 disease was found in 30, ypT0N1 in one, ypT2 in 15 and ypT3 in one. Local recurrence developed in three of the nine patients with ypT2 tumours who declined further surgery. Postoperative complications grade I-IIIb occurred in 13 of 47 patients after TEM and in five of 12 after (completion) surgery. After a median follow-up of 17 months, four local recurrences had developed overall, three in patients with ypT2 and one with ypT1 disease. ConclusionTEM after chemoradiotherapy enabled organ preservation in one-half of the patients with rectal cancer. Organ preservation feasibl

Peritoneal perforation is less a complication than an expected event during transanal endoscopic microsurgery: experience from 194 consecutive cases

Background: Indications for transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) have been extended to technically challenging tumors, which may be associated with an increased risk of peritoneal perforation (PP). The aim of the present study was to investigate the occurrence, management and outcome of PP in patients having TEM. Methods: All the patients who had TEM for rectal adenoma or adenocarcinoma in our unit were included. Patients in whom PP occurred (Group A) were compared to those without PP (Group B). Results: From 2007 to 2015, 194 TEM (116 men, median age 66 [range 21–100] years) were divided into Groups A (n = 28, 14%) and B (n = 166). The latter group included four patients, in whom a laparoscopy did not confirm suspicion of PP made during TEM. In 2 of 28 patients (7%), the diagnosis of PP was made postoperatively during reoperation for peritonitis. For the 26 other patients (93%), routine exploratory laparoscopy was performed with suture of the peritoneal defect on the pouch of Douglas in 24 cases and a rectal suture alone in 2 cases. Independent predictive factors for PP were: distance from the anal verge >10 cm (OR = 3.6), circumferential tumor (OR = 3.0) and anterior location (OR = 2.7). Hospital stay was significantly longer in Group A (7.5 [3–31] days) than in Group B (4 [1–38] days; p < 0.0001), whereas there was no significant difference regarding postoperative morbidity and recurrence rate. Conclusions: Our results suggested that PP is not a very rare event during TEM, especially in anterior, circumferential and/or high rectal tumors. Laparoscopic treatment of PP is feasible and safe. The occurrence of PP is not associated with poor oncologic results