Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_917_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
32 Мб
Скачать
22 Principles ofRectal Cancer Management: Preoperative Staging, Neoadjuvant…
337
Clinical Stage
T3, N0 or T any, N1-2 or T4 and/or locally unresectable or medically inoperable
CRT
-Cape/RT or inf. FU/RT* or bolus FU/LV/RT
CT
-FOLFOX or CapeOC or
-FU/LV or capecitabine
Primary Treatment
Transabdominal resection
Capecitabine/RT or inf. FU/RT or bolus FU/LV/RT
Adjuvant Treatment
FOLFOX or CapeOx or FLOX or FU/LV or capecitabine
Resection contraindicated
Transabdominal resection
Resection contraindicated
Active CT regimen for advanced disease
Surveillance
Active CT regimen for advanced disease
Surveillance
Fig. 22.4 A simplied version of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network algorithm for
locally advanced rectal cancer. Abbreviations: CRT, chemoradiation; CT, chemotherapy Cape, capecitabine; RT, radiation therapy; CapeOx, capecitabine plus oxaliplatin; inf., infusional; FLOX, bolus uorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin; FOLFOX, infusional uorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin; FU, uorouracil; LV, leucovorin
Network (NCCN) guidelines state that candidates for full-thickness local resection include patients with Tis and T1 tumors up to 3cm that are well to moderately dif­ferentiated, occupy less than one-third of the rectal lumen’s circumference, and are located within 8cm from the anal verge. Any local resection that results in a nal margin less than 1 mm or that demonstrates high-risk features for lymph node metastasis, such as lymphovascular invasion, poor differentiation, tumor budding, or penetration of the lower third of the submucosa in the nal pathology specimen, should be followed by a formal proctectomy.
Radiotherapy inCombination withLocal Excision
Preoperative chemoradiation can be used in combination with local excision for selected patients. A number of retrospective studies have shown good local control rates in patients treated with preoperative chemoradiation in combination with local excision. These studies primarily evaluated patients who were not candidates for radi­cal excision or patients who declined proctectomy. A retrospective study conducted at MD Anderson Cancer Center reported outcomes in patients with T3 rectal cancer treated with preoperative radiation (45–52.5Gy) and concurrent uorouracil [3]. Of the 47 treated with local excision, 49% had apathologic complete response (pCR), and 36% had microscopic residual disease after chemoradiation. The 10-year actuarial risk of local recurrence was 10.6%, in comparison with 7.6% in a cohort of 473 patients treated with TME at the same institution. Similarly, a retrospective study conducted in Korea showed a 5-year rate of local relapse-free survival of 89% in 27 patients with
338
mostly T3 rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiation and local excision [4]. Another retrospective study conducted in the United States reported outcomes in 44 patients with T2–T3 rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiation and full-thickness local excision [5]. Pathologic complete responses were seen in about 43% of patients. The results of all these studies should be interpreted with great caution given their small size and retrospective nature. Careful selection of patients likely con­tributed to these results, as suggested by the high proportion of patients with pCR.At this point, the combination of preoperative chemoradiation and full-thickness local excision for T1–T3 rectal cancer appears appropriate only for patients who are medi­cally unt for proctectomy or who refuse radical surgery. Prospective randomized stud­ies areneeded to validate the long-term safety of this approach [6].
E. Pappou and M. R. Weiser
Principles andQuality Benchmarks ofTotal Mesorectal Excision
This chapter will focus on the principles of complete TME for mid- or low-rectal tumors. For tumors of the rectosigmoid or upper rectum, the mesorectal excision should be extended to 5cm distal to the lower edge of the tumor, andthe mesorec­tum should be divided perpendicular to the axis of the rectum (Fig.22.5). As some of the distal mesorectum is left in the pelvis along with the distal rectal stump, this operation is known as tumor-specic TME (TSME), to distinguish it from the com­plete TME, and is covered inChap. 23. Radical proctectomy with complete TME remains the gold standard for locally advanced mid- to low-rectal cancer. Surgical treatment of rectal cancer is aimed at eradicating the primary tumor and its lym­phatic drainage by en bloc removal of the rectum and the mesorectum, following well-dened anatomical planes. TME requires sharp dissection under direct vision along the areolar tissue plane situated between the visceral and parietal layers of the endopelvic fascia. A sharp dissection along the mesorectal plane is associated with a higher probability of achieving a negative CRM, lower risk of bleeding from inad­vertent tearing of the presacral veins, and reduced risk of injuring the hypogastric and pelvic nerves. The basic principles of TME are as follows:
1. Sharp dissection circumferentially around the mesorectum along an avascular
areolar plane between the visceral and parietal layers of the endopelvic fascia.
2. Identication and preservation of the autonomic nerve plexus that controls blad-
der and sexual function.
3. Prevention of tearing of the mesorectum, especially posteriorly when dividing
the rectosacral fascia.
4. Achieving a CRM that is macroscopically clear of tumor. If the tumor extends to
the CRM, a more extensive resection is necessary. This would include removal
of a portion of the parietal layer of the endopelvic fascia and any additional ana-
tomic structures involved by tumor.
The quality of TME surgery is reected in the appearance and integrity of the mesorectum in the removed specimen (Fig. 22.6). Quirke and colleagues have described a grading system that classies rectal cancer specimens according to
Tumor
l
ac
22 Principles ofRectal Cancer Management: Preoperative Staging, Neoadjuvant…
Mesorectum
Tumor-specific bowe and mesorectum transection
5-cm
margin
Total mesorectal
Rectum
excision
339
Fig. 22.5 In tumor-specic TME for high rectal cancers, the rectum and mesorectum are divided
perpendicularly to the rectal wall 5 cm below the level of the tumor. For mid- and low-rectal tumors, complete TME is performed, removing the entire mesorectum to the level of the levator muscles. (Used with permission of Springer Nature from Hakiman etal. [55].)
b
Fig. 22.6 Grading of removed rectal cancer specimens.(a) demonstrates the posterior surface of
an intact mesorectum consistent with a complete TME grade. (b) demonstrates supercial defects in the posterior mesorectum consistent with a near-complete TME grade. (c) demonstrates a speci­men with incomplete TME grade, with exposed muscularis propria. (All images courtesy of Patricia Sylla, MD.)
340
E. Pappou and M. R. Weiser
whether the surgeon has dissected outside the mesorectal fascia in the correct plane (mesorectal excision plane) or has violated the mesorectum, leaving mesorectal tis­sue behind the pelvis following either a plane within the mesorectum (intra­mesorectal excision plane) or directly on the muscularis propria (muscularis propria excision plane) [7]. The macroscopic quality of mesorectal excision completeness has been found to be an independent predictor of local recurrence and survival, even in patients with an uninvolved CRM [8].
Adequate lymphadenectomy requires division of the lymphovascular pedicle at the origin of the superior rectal vessels. This can be achieved by ligation of the infe­rior mesenteric artery distally to the branching of the left colic artery (low ligation), or in cases where clinically suspicious nodes are present at the origin of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA), by dividing the IMA close to its origin (high ligation). We routinely perform high ligation of the IMA at our institution. In either case, all sig­moidal branches should be included in the surgical specimen, and therefore the colon should ideally be proximally divided at the junction of the descending and the sigmoid colon, incorporating the sigmoid colon in the surgical specimen. As distal tumor extension along the rectal wall is limited for mid- and low-rectal cancers, a distal margin of 1–2 cm of normal rectal wall is considered adequate for most tumors.
Patients with low-rectal cancer <5cm from anal verge may still be treated with a sphincter-sparing technique. Options include a hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis if the tumors are >1cm from the sphincter complex, and either partial internal anal sphincter resection for tumors <1cm from the internal anal sphincter or complete intersphincteric resection for tumors involving the internal anal sphincter but spar­ing the external anal sphincters and levators [9].
For many cancers located in the distal rectum, specically those inltrating the levator muscles or the anal sphincter, an oncologically safe CRM and/or distal resection margin is not compatible with sphincter preservation, and an APR is there­fore necessary. In a more radical version of conventional APR, the coccyx is removed en bloc with the rectum and the levators, resulting in a surgical specimen that has a cylindrical appearance; this procedure is called cylindrical or extralevator APR.Some surgeons question the need to entirely remove both levator muscles and recommend removing only the portion of the levators required to clear the tumor. The choice between standard and extralevator APR is controversial. The potential oncologic benet of larger tissue removal needs to be weighed against the increased morbidity associated with a larger perineal defect, particularly in patients treated with neoadjuvant radiotherapy.
Optimal resection of rectal cancer according to the oncological principles of TME can be achieved by open or minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) sur­gical techniques. Multiple trials have demonstrated the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic and robotic surgery for rectal cancer [1012]. Transanal TME (taTME) is a more recently described minimally invasive approach for dissection of the distal rectum in patients with a narrow pelvis [13, 14]. With this technique, lymphovascu­lar control, the entire colonic mobilization, and dissection of the upper rectum are
22 Principles ofRectal Cancer Management: Preoperative Staging, Neoadjuvant…
performed using conventional transabdominal laparoscopy. The dissection of the distal rectum and mesorectum is performed transanally through an endoscopic plat­form. The lumen of the rectum is closed with a purse-string suture to avoid contami­nation, and the rectal wall is incised circumferentially distal to the tumor. The dissection is carried cephalad until the abdominal eld is reached. The specimen is then removed, and the anastomosis is performed through the anus. This approach allows the surgeon to choose precisely the point for transecting the rectum while visualizing the distal edge of the tumor. Transanal TME has been associated with low conversion rates and preliminary oncologic outcomes equivalent to that of abdominal TME.Several trials are underway to assess long-term outcomes relative to laparoscopic TME.Please refer to the chapters on laparoscopic and robotic TME (Chaps. 23 and 24) for more details on operative setup and techniques of minimally invasive TME.
341

Multidisciplinary Management

There is increasing evidence to suggest the benets of a multidisciplinary approach in patients with rectal cancer, involving surgical, medical, and radiation oncologists, radiologists, and pathologists [15]. Rectal cancer centers of excellence have been successfully established in several European countries over the past decade, and similar efforts in standardizing care have begun in the United States [16]. Multidisciplinary tumor (MDT) boards may change the clinical management in a non-negligible proportion of rectal cancer patients, creating a tailored plan for every individual patient [17].
Cancer outcomes are better when patients are managed according to the prin­ciples of MDT care. MDTs are associated with improved clinical decision-mak­ing, clinical outcomes, and patient experience in several cancer types, including rectal cancer. Implementation of an MDT approach to rectal cancer care in several European countries has resulted in reduced rates of local recurrence, lower rates of permanent stoma, and improved overall survival [18, 19]. We strongly encour­age referral of rectal cancer patients to high-volume centers with established MDTs.
Pitfalls andTroubleshooting
Adhering to the traditional principles of following the avascular embryologic planes during dissection, proper tissue handling, ensuring adequate blood supply of the colon conduit, and avoiding tension of the anastomosis remain essential to optimiz­ing outcomes after rectal cancer surgery. All colorectal anastomoses should undergo leak testing regardless of the donut integrity. Methods for creating adequate colon conduit length for a technically sound colorectal or coloanal anastomosis include complete mobilization of the splenic exure and the colon mesentery, division of
342
E. Pappou and M. R. Weiser
the inferior mesenteric vein proximally near the ligament of Treitz, and ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery proximally to the left colic artery (high ligation). In cases when, despite full mobilization of both the mesentery and the left colon, the conduit doesn’t reach the pelvis, or in cases of marginal artery injury, options include performing a total colectomy and an ileorectal anastomosis or rotating the right colon 180° around the ileocolic pedicle in an effort to preserve the ileocecal valve (Deloyers procedure) or performing a retroileal anastomosis between the ascending colon and rectum [20].
Oncologic Outcomes withTME
TME has been associated with improved local control and survival rates. The local recurrence rate following TME ranges from 4% to10%. This represents an improve­ment compared with local recurrence rates following the conventional blunt approach, which range from 15% to 45% with or without chemoradiation or radia­tion. Local recurrence and survival from selected representative studies on TME are shown in Table22.1 [2125]. Radiation or chemoradiation in addition to TME has further decreased local recurrence rates.
The importance of TME technique inlocal recurrence has been demonstrated in Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands, where implementation of educational programs and hands-on surgical TME workshops were shown to markedly reduce local recurrence, improve survival, and reduce the permanent stoma rate (Table22.2) [2628].
Table 22.1 Representative studies assessing local recurrence and survival following TME
surgery
Author MacFarlane etal. [21] UK 1993 135 4 78
Enker etal. [22] Germany 1995 246 7 74 Arbman etal. [23] Sweden 1996 128 6 68 Bjerkeset etal. [24] Norway 1996 81 4 65 Heald etal. [25] UK 1998 405 3 80
N, number of patients
Table 22.2 Local recurrence
rates before and after the introduction ofand training in TME in Northern Europe
Country Year N Local recurrence (%)
Country Local recurrence rate
Pre-TME era Post- TME era
Norway [26] 12% 6% Netherlands [27] 16% 9% Stockholm [28] 14% 6%
Five-year survival (%)
22 Principles ofRectal Cancer Management: Preoperative Staging, Neoadjuvant…
343
Functional Outcomes withTME
High rates of postoperative bowel, sexual, and urinary dysfunction have been a well-known phenomenon in rectal cancer surgery, ranging between 30% and 60% [29]. Bowel dysfunction, otherwise referred to as low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), is present in up to 50–60% of patients after TME; symptoms may include incontinence, frequent bowel movements, bowel emptying difculties, and urge, and may affect quality of life signicantly. Outcomes in urologic and sexual func­tion improved with the advent of sharp dissection and precise technique used in TME, which made the identication and preservation of the autonomic pelvic nerves an integral part of the procedure. In an early study of 42 men undergoing sphincter-preserving operations for treatment of rectal cancer, Enker demonstrated high rates of potency (86.7%) and normal ejaculation (87.9%) with the introduction of nerve-preserving TME [30]. In a comprehensive, retrospective study in both women and men, Havenga reported the sexual and urinary function of 136 patients undergoing nerve-sparing TME for cancer [31], as assessed by survey. The ability to engage in intercourse was maintained by 86% of patients younger than 60years of age and by 67% of patients 60 years and older. Eighty-seven percent of men maintained their ability to achieve orgasm. Type of surgery (APR compared to LAR) and age greater than 60 were signicantly associated with worse male sexual function. Women had similarly good results, with 85% able to experience arousal with vaginal lubrication and 91% able to achieve an orgasm. The majority of patients had few or no complaints related to urinary function. Serious urinary dysfunction such as neurogenic bladder was not encountered in this study. The importance of autonomic nerve identication and preservation during TME was also highlighted in a study by Shirouzu and colleagues, who assessed outcomes of 403 patients undergoing TME with or without nerve-sparing over a 20-year period [32]. In patients who underwent TME with nerve preservation, urinary function was pre­served in over 80% of patients, erection in 79%, and ejaculation in 65%, whereas when TME was performed without nerve preservation, urinary disorders were found in over 90% and sexual dysfunction in virtually all patients, even in those younger than age 60.

Preoperative Versus Postoperative Chemoradiation

Multiple trials have established preoperative chemoradiation as a standard of care for patients with stage II and III rectal cancer. The German CAO/ARO/AIO-94 trial was the landmark study that established the superiority of preoperative chemoradia­tion over postoperative chemoradiation for rectal cancer [33]. In this trial, 823 patients were randomized to receive either preoperative chemoradiation or postop­erative chemoradiation, along with TME and adjuvant chemotherapy with bolus uorouracil and leucovorin. Patients in the preoperative chemoradiation arm had signicantly lower 5-year rates of local relapse (6% vs. 13%, p=0.006), higher rates of sphincter preservation (39% vs. 20%), and lower rates of toxicity (grade 3–4
344
E. Pappou and M. R. Weiser
acute toxicity, 27% vs. 40%; grade 3–4 late toxicity, 14% vs. 24%); however, there was no signicant difference in overall or disease-free survival between the two arms [33, 34]. Even after a median follow-up of 11years, patients in the preopera­tive chemoradiation arm had a signicantly lower 10-year rate of local relapse (7% vs. 10%, p=0.048) [34]. The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project R-03 trial, in which patients were randomized to either preoperative or postopera­tive chemoradiation, provided further support for the use of preoperative chemora­diation [35]. Unlike in the German trial, the 5-year rate of disease-free survival was signicantly higher (65% vs. 53%, p=0.011) in patients who received chemoradia­tion preoperatively. The results of this trial provided general support for the preop­erative approach; however, they should be interpreted cautiously, as the trial enrolled only 267 patients instead of 900 as was initially planned. Two randomized trials have compared preoperative chemoradiation and preoperative long-course radiation alone: the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 22,921 trial, which included 1,011 patients, and the Federation Francophone de Cancerologie Digestive (FFCD) trial, which included 762 patients [3638]. Both trials showed that preoperative chemoradiation resulted in signicantly higher rates of pathologic complete response and signicantly lower rates of local recurrence, with somewhat higher toxicity.

Short-Course Radiotherapy

Preoperative short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) is used mainly in Scandinavia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. It consists of a radiation schedule of 25Gy delivered in a single week, with 5 treatments of 5Gy each (5×5). SCRT offers the potential benets of shorter duration of treatment, more efcient uti­lization of resources, and lower cost compared to traditional long-course chemo­radiation. However, the higher dose per fraction increases the risk of delayed toxicity, and tumor regression is lower with SCRT.Two prospective randomized trials comparing SCRT with long-course chemoradiation have reported equiva­lent local tumor control for the two regimens, and the selection between SCRT and long-course chemoradiation is usually based on doctor and patient prefer­ence [39].
Recent results from the Stockholm III trial suggest that an 8-week interval between the end of SCRT and surgery may be more benecial than the conventional 3- to 7-day interval [40]. In this trial, 840 patients with intermediate-risk (locally advanced) rectal cancer were randomized to preoperative radiotherapy using SCRT with eitherimmediate (3–7days) or delayed (4–8weeks) surgery, or long-course conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (25× 2 Gy) without chemotherapy and delayed surgery (4–8weeks). The trial showed no difference inlocal recurrence rates, distant metastases, or recurrence-free or overall survival between the 3 arms. Postoperative mortality was the same, but postoperative morbidity (53% vs. 41%, p=0.001) and surgical morbidity (36% vs. 28%, p=0.03) were higher in patients who underwent SCRT with immediate surgery.
22 Principles ofRectal Cancer Management: Preoperative Staging, Neoadjuvant…
345

Intraoperative Radiation

Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) involves the delivery of a single, large dose of radiation (biologically equivalent to 2–3 times its nominal dose) intraoperatively to high-risk areas, using either electron beams or highdose-rate brachytherapy appli­cators. IORT allows radiation to be delivered to a small, specied area that is at highest risk of recurrence, taking advantage of direct visualization of the treated area and operative mobilization of normal structures away from the radiation eld. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of 29 studies including a total of 3,003 patients on IORT for locally advanced or recurrent colorectal cancer indicated a signicant improvement inlocal control (odds ratio, 0.22; p=0.03), disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.51; p= 0.009), and overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.33; p=0.001), albeit at the expense of an increase in wound complications (odds ratio,
1.86; p = 0.049), but no signicant difference in total complications [41]. IORT therefore appears to result in favorable perioperative and long-term outcomes and should be considered for selected patients who are at high risk of local recurrence.
Selective Omission ofRadiotherapy andNeoadjuvant Chemotherapy
Certain patient subgroups have a relatively low risk of local recurrence and can potentially be treated without radiation, thereby avoiding the associated acute and late side effects.
In the multicenter MERCURY study, which evaluated the role of MRI in identi­fying patients with low risk of local recurrence who could be treated with surgery without radiotherapy, 33% of patients identied as having a good prognosis based on specic MRI criteria (safe CRM with tumor >1mm from the mesorectal fascia, no extramural venous invasion, extramural spread <5mm, and no encroachment into intersphincteric plane or levators for low-rectal tumors) were treated with sur­gery alone. Patients with good prognosis had a local recurrence rate of only 3%. Moreover, the 5-year rates of disease-free survival and overall survival in this group were 85% and 68%, respectively [42]. Based on the ndings of the MERCURY study, good-quality rectal cancer protocol MRI and appropriate interpretation of the images by highly trained radiologists can be used to select patients who can be treated with TME without radiation.
A small prospective Phase II trial conducted at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center also investigated the use of preoperative chemotherapy without radiation in patients with intermediate-risk rectal cancer (tumor located 5–12cm from the anal verge that does not threaten the mesorectal fascia on MRI) [43]. In this trial, 32 patients with resectable, clinically staged II–III rectal cancer were treated with pre­operative FOLFOX (uorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin)/anti-VEGF and selective chemoradiotherapy, based on tumor response. The 30 patients who com­pleted preoperative chemotherapy had tumor regression and underwent proctec­tomy without preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Eight (27%) had pathologic
346
E. Pappou and M. R. Weiser
complete responses. No local recurrences were noted at 4years, and disease-free survival was 84%. The ndings of this trial suggest that preoperative chemotherapy can be a potential alternative to preoperative chemoradiation for selected patients.
To further investigate this treatment approach, the ongoing multicenter Phase II/ III study CALGB PROSPECT (Preoperative Radiation or Selective Preoperative Evaluation of Chemotherapy and TME) is randomizing patients to either the stan­dard treatment arm (chemoradiotherapy, surgery, and adjuvant FOLFOX chemo­therapy) or the selective arm, with 6 cycles of FOLFOX, evaluation of response, followed by TME, with consideration for standard chemoradiotherapy if the reduc­tion of the primary tumor is <20% on endoscopic and radiographic ndings [44]. Eligible patients must have biopsy-proven adenocarcinoma with the primary tumor located 5–12cm from the anal verge and must be candidates for sphincter-sparing surgery. The primary outcomes of the Phase II component are R0 resection rate and time to local recurrence. The primary endpoints of the Phase III component are time to local recurrence and disease-free survival. This study has accrued, and results will provide important insight into the potential for a more individualized treatment approach for rectal cancer through selective use of radiation.

Adjuvant Chemotherapy

Most patients with rectal cancer eventually experience metastatic disease. Consequently, similarly to patients with stage III colon cancer, patients with locally advanced (stage II and III) rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiother­apy and proctectomy are considered for postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy regardless of the histologic tumor stage identied in the nal pathology specimen. Postoperative chemotherapyusually consists of uorouracil or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin. While the use of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for rectal cancer lacks the unequivocal support that data from prospective randomized trial would provide, a recent meta-analysis of 21 randomized controlled trials concluded that postoperative uorouracil-based chemotherapy is effective against locally advanced rectal cancer [45].
Initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy within 8weeks of TME is recommended based on a meta-analysis that reported that each 4-week delay in initiation of adju­vant chemotherapy resulted in signicant decreases in overall survival (hazard ratio,
1.14; 95% condence interval 1.10–1.17) and disease-free survival (hazard ratio,
1.14; 95% condence interval, 1.10–1.18) [46]. These data have to be interpreted with caution, as worse outcomes in patients starting chemotherapy at later times may be confounded by signicant comorbidities or surgical complications, which are linked to delays in initiation of therapy following surgery and to worse overall survival. While acknowledging potential confounding by age and comorbidities, we do recommend starting chemotherapy as soon as feasible after full recovery from surgery. It is important to highlight that up to a third of eligible patients with locally advanced rectal cancer never start adjuvant chemotherapy and less than half receive the full treatment course without interruptions or delay, due to either postoperative complications, slow recovery, or treatment refusal [47]. Even at specialty cancer