Добавил:
Sekretar
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
X
- •Preface
- •Acknowledgments
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •1: SAGES University MASTERS Program: Colorectal Pathway
- •Introduction
- •References
- •Colorectal Surgery Curriculum
- •Facebook™ Groups
- •Conclusion
- •Operative Setup
- •Operating Room Setup
- •Patient Positioning
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Trocar Placement
- •Top-Down Approach
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Setup
- •Operative Technique
- •Port Placement
- •Left/Sigmoid Colectomy
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Setup
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Supramesocolic Approach
- •Inframesocolic Approach
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Bibliography
- •Operative Setup
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Laparoscopic Access
- •Colon Transection
- •Specimen Extraction
- •Anastomosis
- •Fistula Repair
- •Other Steps
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Solicit Institutional Support
- •Reviewing Current Data
- •Overcoming Barriers Through Culture Change
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Preoperative Risk Assessment
- •Special Considerations
- •Immune Suppression
- •Smokers
- •Malnutrition
- •Obesity
- •Renal Impairment
- •Preoperative Stoma Marking
- •Preoperative Patient Education
- •Parenteral Antibiotics
- •Positioning
- •Surgical Time-Out
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Preoperative Preparation
- •Laparoscopic Access
- •Special Considerations
- •Complicated Peritoneal Entry
- •Equipment Issues
- •Physiologic Issues
- •Optimizing Laparoscopic Exposure
- •OR Table Positioning
- •Laparoscopic Visualization
- •Splenic Bleeding
- •Organ Injury
- •Small Bowel Injury
- •Ureteral Injury
- •Trocar Site Closure
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Definitions
- •Central Venous Ligation (CVL)
- •Pathological Outcomes
- •Long-Term Survival
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •12: Unexpected Findings at Appendectomy
- •Inflamed Meckel’s Diverticulum
- •Appendiceal Mass
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Cecal Diverticulitis
- •Sigmoid Diverticulitis
- •Epiploic Appendagitis
- •Crohn’s Disease
- •Gynecologic Pathology
- •Operative Setup
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps, Medial-to-Lateral Approach
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Preoperative Planning
- •Operative Techniques
- •Positioning
- •Trocars Placement
- •Side-to-Side Stapled Anastomosis
- •Side-to-Side Handsewn Anastomosis
- •Side-to-End Stapled Anastomosis
- •Side-to-End Handsewn Anastomosis
- •End-to-Side Handsewn Anastomosis
- •End-to-End Handsewn Anastomosis
- •Operative Time
- •Spillage
- •Alignment/Ergonomics
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Setup
- •da Vinci Xi® Setup (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA)
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Setup
- •Complex Crohn’s Disease Resection
- •Crohn’s Fistula
- •Difficult Crohn’s Mesentery
- •Ileocolonic Reconstruction
- •Intracorporeal Anastomosis
- •Extracorporeal Anastomosis
- •Entry
- •Adhesiolysis
- •Thickened Mesentery
- •Anastomotic Problems
- •Postoperative Issues
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Preoperative Optimization
- •Accelerated Recovery Pathway
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Locally Advanced Tumors
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Setup
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Colonic J Pouch
- •Transverse Coloplasty
- •Baker’s Anastomosis
- •Anastomotic Assessment
- •Rectal Stump Blowout
- •Staple Line Bleeding
- •Outcomes
- •Anastomotic Leak
- •Anastomotic Assessment
- •Temporary Fecal Diversion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Malignant Diseases
- •Benign Diseases
- •Operative Setup
- •Patient Positioning
- •Room Setup
- •Operative Technique
- •Trocar Placement
- •Si® Robot (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA)
- •Xi® Robot (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA)
- •Si Robot
- •Xi Robot
- •Instrument Insertion
- •Extracorporeal Anastomosis
- •Intracorporeal Anastomosis
- •Instrument Collisions
- •Bleeding
- •Anastomotic Leak
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Adhesions
- •Difficult Rectal Stump Dissection
- •Rectal Stump Retraction
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Review Operative Report
- •Review Pathology Report
- •Cross-Sectional Imaging
- •Ureteral Stents
- •Operative Setup
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Preoperative Staging
- •Indications and Contraindications
- •Multidisciplinary Management
- •Preoperative Versus Postoperative Chemoradiation
- •Short-Course Radiotherapy
- •Intraoperative Radiation
- •Adjuvant Chemotherapy
- •Total Neoadjuvant Therapy
- •Nonoperative Management
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Other Equipment/Incisions
- •Splenic Flexure Mobilization
- •Lateral Dissection
- •Pelvic Dissection
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Setup
- •Positioning
- •Port Placement
- •Extraction Site
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Splenic Flexure Release
- •Rectal Mobilization
- •Posterior Dissection
- •Lateral Dissection
- •Anterior Dissection
- •Pelvic Floor Dissection
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Synchronous Masses/Tumors
- •Meckel’s Diverticulum
- •Peritoneal Carcinomatosis
- •Liver Metastasis
- •Ovarian Mass
- •Malrotation
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Technique
- •Learning Curve
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Strategy
- •Operative Setup
- •Patient Positioning
- •Port Placement
- •Diagnostic Laparoscopy
- •Minimally Invasive Resectional Approach
- •Best Approach
- •Splenic Flexure Mobilization (If Needed)
- •Distal Colon Transection
- •Considerations During Laparoscopic Hartmann’s Procedure
- •Obese Patients
- •Minimally Invasive Non-resectional Approach
- •Laparoscopic Peritoneal Lavage
- •Operative Setup
- •Port Placement
- •Postoperative Management
- •Outcomes
- •Resection
- •Laparoscopic Lavage
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Splenic Flexure Release
- •Colonic Conduit Ischemia
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Surgeon-Related Factors
- •Bowel Preparation
- •Ureteral Stents
- •Patient Positioning
- •Pneumoperitoneum
- •Laparoscopic Exposure: Trocars
- •Laparoscopic Adhesiolysis

22 Principles ofRectal 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 simplied 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 3cm that are well to moderately differentiated, occupy less than one-third of the rectal lumen’s circumference, and are
located within 8cm 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 inCombination withLocal 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 (45–52.5Gy) and concurrent uorouracil [3]. Of
the 47 treated with local excision, 49% had apathologic 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 unt for proctectomy or who refuse radical surgery. Prospective randomized studies areneeded to validate the long-term safety of this approach [6].
E. Pappou and M. R. Weiser
Principles andQuality Benchmarks ofTotal 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 5cm distal to the lower edge of the tumor, andthe 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-specic TME (TSME), to distinguish it from the complete TME, and is covered inChap. 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-dened 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. Identication 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 reected in the appearance and integrity of the
mesorectum in the removed specimen (Fig. 22.6). Quirke and colleagues have
described a grading system that classies rectal cancer specimens according to

Tumor
l
ac
22 Principles ofRectal 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-specic 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 etal. [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 supercial 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 <5cm from anal verge may still be treated with a
sphincter-sparing technique. Options include a hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis if
the tumors are >1cm from the sphincter complex, and either partial internal anal
sphincter resection for tumors <1cm 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, specically those inltrating 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 benet 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 [10–12]. 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 ofRectal 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 benets 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 andTroubleshooting
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 withTME
TME has been associated with improved local control and survival rates. The local
recurrence rate following TME ranges from 4% to10%. 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 Table22.1 [21–25]. Radiation or chemoradiation in addition to TME has
further decreased local recurrence rates.
The importance of TME technique inlocal 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
(Table22.2) [26–28].
Table 22.1 Representative studies assessing local recurrence and survival following TME
surgery
Author
MacFarlane etal. [21] UK 1993 135 4 78
Enker etal. [22] Germany 1995 246 7 74
Arbman etal. [23] Sweden 1996 128 6 68
Bjerkeset etal. [24] Norway 1996 81 4 65
Heald etal. [25] UK 1998 405 3 80
N, number of patients
Table 22.2 Local recurrence
rates before and after the
introduction ofand 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 ofRectal Cancer Management: Preoperative Staging, Neoadjuvant…
343
Functional Outcomes withTME
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 difculties, and urge,
and may affect quality of life signicantly. Outcomes in urologic and sexual function improved with the advent of sharp dissection and precise technique used in
TME, which made the identication 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 60years
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 signicantly 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 identication 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
signicantly 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 signicant difference in overall or disease-free survival between the two
arms [33, 34]. Even after a median follow-up of 11years, patients in the preoperative chemoradiation arm had a signicantly 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
signicantly 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 [36–38]. Both
trials showed that preoperative chemoradiation resulted in signicantly higher rates
of pathologic complete response and signicantly 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
25Gy delivered in a single week, with 5 treatments of 5Gy each (5×5). SCRT
offers the potential benets of shorter duration of treatment, more efcient 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 benecial 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 eitherimmediate (3–7days) or delayed (4–8weeks) surgery, or long-course
conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (25× 2 Gy) without chemotherapy and
delayed surgery (4–8weeks). The trial showed no difference inlocal 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 ofRectal 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 highdose-rate brachytherapy applicators. IORT allows radiation to be delivered to a small, specied 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 signicant improvement inlocal 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 signicant 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 ofRadiotherapy andNeoadjuvant
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 identied as having a good prognosis based
on specic MRI criteria (safe CRM with tumor >1mm from the mesorectal fascia,
no extramural venous invasion, extramural spread <5mm, 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 5–12cm 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 4years, 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 5–12cm 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 identied in the nal pathology specimen.
Postoperative chemotherapyusually 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 8weeks of TME is recommended
based on a meta-analysis that reported that each 4-week delay in initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy resulted in signicant decreases in overall survival (hazard ratio,
1.14; 95% condence interval 1.10–1.17) and disease-free survival (hazard ratio,
1.14; 95% condence 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 signicant 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
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
