Management of Locally Advanced Primary and Recurrent Rectal Cancer

Treatment for patients with locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer differs significantly from patients with rectal cancer restricted to the mesorectum. Adequate preoperative imaging of the pelvis is therefore important to identify those patients who are candidates for multimodality treatment, including preoperative chemoradiation protocols, intraoperative radiotherapy, and extended surgical resections. Much effort should be made to select patients with these advanced tumors for treatment in specialized referral centers. This has been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality and improve long-term survival rates. In this article, we review the best treatment options for patients with locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer. We also emphasize the necessity of a multidisciplinary team, including a radiologist, radiation oncologist, urologist, surgical oncologist, plastic surgeon, and gynecologist in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with these pelvic tumors

Prophylactic mesh placement to prevent parastomal hernia, early results of a prospective multicentre randomized trial

PURPOSE: Parastomal hernia (PSH) is a common complication after colostomy formation. Recent studies indicate that mesh implantation during formation of a colostomy might prevent a PSH. To determine if placement of a retromuscular mesh at the colostomy site is a feasible, safe and effective procedure in preventing a parastomal hernia, we performed a multicentre randomized controlled trial in 11 large teaching hospitals and three university centres in The Netherlands. METHODS: Augmentation of the abdominal wall with a retromuscular light-weight polypropylene mesh (Parietene Light, Covidien) around the trephine was compared with traditional colostomy formation. Patients undergoing elective open formation of a permanent end-colostomy were eligible. 150 patients were randomized between 2010 and 2012. Primary endpoint of the PREVENT trial is the incidence of parastomal hernia. Secondary endpoints are morbidity, pain, quality of life, mortality and cost-effectiveness. This article focussed on the early results of the PREVENT trial and, therefore, operation time, postoperative morbidity, pain, and quality of life were measured. Results : Outcomes represent results after 3 months of follow-up. A total of 150 patients were randomized. Mean operation time of the mesh group (N = 72) was significantly longer than in the control group (N = 78) (182.6 vs. 156.8 min; P = 0.018). Four (2.7 %) peristomal infections occurred of which one (1.4 %) in the mesh group. No infection of the mesh occurred. Most of the other infections were infections of the perineal wound, equally distributed over both groups. No statistical differences were discovered in stoma or mesh-related complications, fistula or stricture formation, pain, or quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: During open and elective formation of an end-colostomy, primary placement of a retromuscular light-weight polypropylene mesh for prevention of a parastomal hernia is a safe and feasible procedure. The PREVENT trial is registered at: http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2018

Prophylactic Mesh Placement During Formation of an End-colostomy Reduces the Rate of Parastomal Hernia: Short-term Results of the Dutch PREVENT-trial

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of parastomal hernias (PSHs) after end-colostomy formation using a polypropylene mesh in a randomized controlled trial versus conventional colostomy formation. BACKGROUND: A PSH is the most frequent complication after stoma formation. Symptoms may range from mild abdominal pain to life-threatening obstruction and strangulation. The treatment of a PSH is notoriously difficult and recurrences up to 20% have been reported despite the use of mesh. This has moved surgical focus toward prevention. METHODS: Augmentation of the abdominal wall with a retro-muscular lightweight polypropylene mesh was compared with the traditional formation of a colostomy. In total, 150 patients (1:1 ratio) were included. The incidence of a PSH, morbidity, mortality, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness was measured after 1 year of follow-up. RESULTS: There was no difference between groups regarding demographics and predisposing factors for PSH. Three out of 67 patients (4.5%) in the mesh group and 16 out of 66 patients (24.2%) in the nonmesh group developed a PSH (P = 0.0011). No statistically significant difference was found in infections, concomitant hernias, SF-36 questionnaire, Von Korff pain score, and cost-effectiveness between both study groups. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic augmentation of the abdominal wall with a retromuscular lightweight polypropylene mesh at the ostomy site significantly reduces the incidence of PSH without a significant difference in morbidity, mortality, quality of life, or cost-effectiveness

Recent trends in the use of radical prostatectomy in England: the epidemiology of diffusion

OBJECTIVE To describe recent trends in the use of radical prostatectomy (RP) in England, as there is currently no consensus on the most effective treatment for localized prostate cancer, although RP is the treatment of choice among urological surgeons for men aged < 70 years. METHODS Routine data were assessed to establish the number of RPs performed in England in 1991–99. Age-standardized operation rates were compared by region and socio-economic group, and the geographical spread of use mapped. RESULTS The number of RPs performed annually increased nearly 20-fold between 1991 and 1999. Rates of surgery were greatest in the London National Health Service (NHS) regions and lowest in the Trent region. Outside London, the risk of surgery in a NHS hospital was significantly greater for men living in the least deprived areas; in London this trend was reversed. CONCLUSION Rapid increases in the use of RP showed marked regional variations, most likely related to access to prostate-specific antigen testing and the location of surgeons able to carry out radical surgery. By 1999, a third of procedures were still being undertaken in 'low-volume' hospitals, with implications for the quality of care and outcomes. Crucially, these developments occurred in the absence of robust information about the effectiveness of RP. Recent funding of a randomized trial of treatment options in this area is welcome, but wider questions remain about the timing of the evaluation of surgical technologies