Changing outcomes following pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer

Background Pelvic exenteration for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is technically challenging but increasingly performed in specialist centres. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of exenteration over time. Methods This was a multicentre retrospective study of patients who underwent exenteration for LARC and LRRC between 2004 and 2015. Surgical outcomes, including rate of bone resection, flap reconstruction, margin status and transfusion rates, were examined. Outcomes between higher- and lower-volume centres were also evaluated. Results Some 2472 patients underwent pelvic exenteration for LARC and LRRC across 26 institutions. For LARC, rates of bone resection or flap reconstruction increased from 2004 to 2015, from 3.5 to 12.8 per cent, and from 12.0 to 29.4 per cent respectively. Fewer units of intraoperative blood were transfused over this interval (median 4 to 2 units; P = 0.040). Subgroup analysis showed that bone resection and flap reconstruction rates increased in lower- and higher-volume centres. R0 resection rates significantly increased in low-volume centres but not in high-volume centres over time (low-volume: from 62.5 to 80.0 per cent, P = 0.001; high-volume: from 83.5 to 88.4 per cent, P = 0.660). For LRRC, no significant trends over time were observed for bone resection or flap reconstruction rates. The median number of units of intraoperative blood transfused decreased from 5 to 2.5 units (P < 0.001). R0 resection rates did not increase in either low-volume (from 51.7 to 60.4 per cent; P = 0.610) or higher-volume (from 48.6 to 65.5 per cent; P = 0.100) centres. No significant differences in length of hospital stay, 30-day complication, reintervention or mortality rates were observed over time. Conclusion Radical resection, bone resection and flap reconstruction rates were performed more frequently over time, while transfusion requirements decreased

Induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy alone as neoadjuvant treatment for locally recurrent rectal cancer: Study protocol of a multicentre, open-label, parallel-arms, randomized controlled study (PelvEx II)

Background: A resection with clear margins (R0 resection) is the most important prognostic factor in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). However, this is achieved in only 60 per cent of patients. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the addition of induction chemotherapy to neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation improves the R0 resection rate in LRRC. Methods: Thismulticentre, international, open-label, phase III, parallel-arms study will enrol 364 patients with resectable LRRC after previous partial or total mesorectal resection without synchronous distant metastases or recent chemo- and/or radiotherapy treatment. Patients will be randomized to receive either induction chemotherapy (three 3-week cycles of CAPOX (capecitabine, oxaliplatin), four 2- week cycles of FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) or FOLFORI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan)) followed by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery (experimental arm) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery alone (control arm). Tumours will be restaged usingMRI and, in the experimental arm, a further cycle of CAPOX or two cycles of FOLFOX/FOLFIRI will be administered before chemoradiotherapy in case of stable or responsive disease. The radiotherapy dose will be 25 × 2.0 Gy or 28 × 1.8Gy in radiotherapy-naive patients, and 15 × 2.0Gy in previously irradiated patients. The concomitant chemotherapy agent will be capecitabine administered twice daily at a dose of 825mg/m2 on radiotherapy days. The primary endpoint of the study is the R0 resection rate. Secondary endpoints are long-termoncological outcomes, radiological and pathological response, toxicity, postoperative complications, costs, and quality of life. Discussion: This trial protocol describes the PelvEx II study. PelvEx II, designed as a multicentre, open-label, phase III, parallel-arms study, is the first randomized study to compare induction chemotherapy followed by neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation and surgery with neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation and surgery alone in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer, with the aim of improving the number of R0 resections

Perioperative management and anaesthetic considerations in pelvic exenterations using Delphi methodology: Results from the PelvEx Collaborative

Background: The multidisciplinary perioperative and anaesthetic management of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration is essential for good surgical outcomes. No clear guidelines have been established, and there is wide variation in clinical practice internationally. This consensus statement consolidates clinical experience and best practice collectively, and systematically addresses key domains in the perioperative and anaesthetic management. Methods: The modified Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus from the PelvEx Collaborative. The process included one round of online questionnaire involving controlled feedback and structured participant response, two rounds of editing, and one round of web-based voting. It was held from December 2019 to February 2020. Consensus was defined as more than 80 per cent agreement, whereas less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. Results: The final consensus document contained 47 voted statements, across six key domains of perioperative and anaesthetic management in pelvic exenteration, comprising preoperative assessment and preparation, anaesthetic considerations, perioperative management, anticipating possible massive haemorrhage, stress response and postoperative critical care, and pain management. Consensus recommendations were developed, based on consensus agreement achieved on 34 statements. Conclusion: The perioperative and anaesthetic management of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration is best accomplished by a dedicated multidisciplinary team with relevant domain expertise in the setting of a specialized tertiary unit. This consensus statement has addressed key domains within the framework of current perioperative and anaesthetic management among patients undergoing pelvic exenteration, with an international perspective, to guide clinical practice, and has outlined areas for future clinical research

Contemporary Management of Locally Advanced and Recurrent Rectal Cancer: Views from the PelvEx Collaborative

Pelvic exenteration is a complex operation performed for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic cancers. The goal of surgery is to achieve clear margins, therefore identifying adjacent or involved organs, bone, muscle, nerves and/or vascular structures that may need resection. While these extensive resections are potentially curative, they can be associated with substantial morbidity. Recently, there has been a move to centralize care to specialized units, as this facilitates better multi-disciplinary care input. Advancements in pelvic oncology and surgical innovation have redefined the boundaries of pelvic exenterative surgery. Combined with improved neoadjuvant therapies, advances in diagnostics, and better reconstructive techniques have provided quicker recovery and better quality of life outcomes, with improved survival This article provides highlights of the current management of advanced pelvic cancers in terms of surgical strategy and potential future developments

Induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy alone as neoadjuvant treatment for locally recurrent rectal cancer: study protocol of a multicentre, open-label, parallel-arms, randomized controlled study (PelvEx II)

Background A resection with clear margins (R0 resection) is the most important prognostic factor in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). However, this is achieved in only 60 per cent of patients. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the addition of induction chemotherapy to neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation improves the R0 resection rate in LRRC. Methods This multicentre, international, open-label, phase III, parallel-arms study will enrol 364 patients with resectable LRRC after previous partial or total mesorectal resection without synchronous distant metastases or recent chemo- and/or radiotherapy treatment. Patients will be randomized to receive either induction chemotherapy (three 3-week cycles of CAPOX (capecitabine, oxaliplatin), four 2-week cycles of FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) or FOLFORI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan)) followed by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery (experimental arm) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery alone (control arm). Tumours will be restaged using MRI and, in the experimental arm, a further cycle of CAPOX or two cycles of FOLFOX/FOLFIRI will be administered before chemoradiotherapy in case of stable or responsive disease. The radiotherapy dose will be 25 × 2.0 Gy or 28 × 1.8 Gy in radiotherapy-naive patients, and 15 × 2.0 Gy in previously irradiated patients. The concomitant chemotherapy agent will be capecitabine administered twice daily at a dose of 825 mg/m2 on radiotherapy days. The primary endpoint of the study is the R0 resection rate. Secondary endpoints are long-term oncological outcomes, radiological and pathological response, toxicity, postoperative complications, costs, and quality of life. Discussion This trial protocol describes the PelvEx II study. PelvEx II, designed as a multicentre, open-label, phase III, parallel-arms study, is the first randomized study to compare induction chemotherapy followed by neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation and surgery with neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation and surgery alone in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer, with the aim of improving the number of R0 resections

Impact of a history of metastases or synchronous metastases on survival in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer

Aim: Patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) frequently present with either synchronous metastases or a history of metastases. This study was conducted to evaluate whether LRRC patients without metastases have a different oncological outcome compared to patients with a history of metastases treated with curative intent or patients with potentially curable synchronous metastases. Method: All consecutive LRRC patients who underwent intentionally curative surgery between 2005 and 2017 in a large tertiary hospital were retrospectively reviewed and categorized as having no metastases, a history of (curatively treated) metastases or synchronous metastases. Patients with unresectable distant metastases were excluded from the analysis. Results: Of the 349 patients who were analysed, 261 (75%) had no metastases, 42 (12%) had a history of metastases and 46 (13%) had synchronous metastases. The 3-year metastasis-free survival was 52%, 33% and 13% in patients without metastases, with a history of metastases, and with synchronous metastases, respectively (P < 0.001) A history of metastases did not influence overall survival (OS), but there was a trend towards a worse OS in patients with synchronous metastases compared with patients without synchronous metastases (hazard ratio 1.43; 95% CI 0.98–2.11). Conclusion: LRRC patients with a history of curatively treated metastases have an OS comparable to that in patients without metastases and should therefore be treated with curative intent. However, LRRC patients with synchronous metastases have a poor metastasis-free survival and worse OS; in these patients, an individualized treatment approach to observe the behaviour of the disease is recommended

Impact of a history of metastases or synchronous metastases on survival in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer

Aim: Patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) frequently present with either synchronous metastases or a history of metastases. This study was conducted to evaluate whether LRRC patients without metastases have a different oncological outcome compared to patients with a history of metastases treated with curative intent or patients with potentially curable synchronous metastases. Method: All consecutive LRRC patients who underwent intentionally curative surgery between 2005 and 2017 in a large tertiary hospital were retrospectively reviewed and categorized as having no metastases, a history of (curatively treated) metastases or synchronous metastases. Patients with unresectable distant metastases were excluded from the analysis. Results: Of the 349 patients who were analysed, 261 (75%) had no metastases, 42 (12%) had a history of metastases and 46 (13%) had synchronous metastases. The 3-year metastasis-free survival was 52%, 33% and 13% in patients without metastases, with a history of metastases, and with synchronous metastases, respectively (P < 0.001) A history of metastases did not influence overall survival (OS), but there was a trend towards a worse OS in patients with synchronous metastases compared with patients without synchronous metastases (hazard ratio 1.43; 95% CI 0.98–2.11). Conclusion: LRRC patients with a history of curatively treated metastases have an OS comparable to that in patients without metastases and should therefore be treated with curative intent. However, LRRC patients with synchronous metastases have a poor metastasis-free survival and worse OS; in these patients, an individualized treatment approach to observe the behaviour of the disease is recommended

Minimally invasive surgery techniques in pelvic exenteration : a systematic and meta-analysis review

BackgroundPelvic exenteration is potentially curative for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic cancers. Evolving technology has facilitated the use of minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques in selected cases. We aimed to compare outcomes between open and MIS pelvic exenteration.MethodsA review of comparative studies was performed. Firstly, we evaluated the differences in surgical techniques with respect to operative time, blood loss, and margin status. Secondly, we assessed differences in 30-day morbidity and mortality rates, and length of hospital stay.ResultsFour studies that directly compared open and MIS exenteration were included. Analysis was performed on 170 patients; 78.1% (n=133) had open pelvic exenteration, while 21.8% (n=37) had a MIS exenteration. The median age for open exenteration was 57.7years versus 63years for MIS exenteration. Even though the operative time for MIS exenteration was 83min longer (p<0.001), it was associated with a median of 1,750mls less blood loss. The morbidity rate for MIS exenterative group was 56.7% (n=21/37) versus 88.5% (n=85/96) in the open exenteration group, with pooled analysis observing a 1.17 relative risk increase in 30-day morbidity (p=0.172) in the open exenteration group. In addition, the MIS cohort had a 6-day shorter length of hospital stay (p=0.04).ConclusionMIS exenteration can be performed in highly selective cases, where there is favourable patient anatomy and tumour characteristics. When feasible, it is associated with reduced intra-operative blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, and reduced morbidity