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_927_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
31 Мб
Скачать
RECTAL AND PARARECTAL REGION
151
S
u
g g e
ugestad KM, Lindsetmo RO, Reynolds H, etal. International trends in surgi-
A
cal treatment of rectal cancer. Am J Surg. 2011;201(3):353–358.
Delaney CP. Operative Techniques in Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery. Phila-
delphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013.
Fazio VW, Zutshi M, Remzi FH, etal. A randomized multicenter trial to com-
pare long-term functional outcome, quality of life, and complications of surgical procedures for low rectal cancers. Ann Surg. 2007;246(3):481–488, discussion 488–490.
Heriot AG, Byrne CM, Lee P, etal. Extended radical resection: the choice
for locally recurrent rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(3):284–291.
Jayne DG, orpe HC, Copeland J, et al. Five-year follow-up of the Medical
Research Council CLASICC trial of laparoscopically assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2010;97(11):1638–1645.
S t
e d
R
e
a d i n g
MERCURY Study Group. Diagnostic accuracy of preoperative magnetic reso-
nance imaging in predicting curative resection of rectal cancer: prospec­tive observational study. BMJ. 2006;333(7572):779.
Peeters KCMJ, Tollenaar RAEM, Marijnen CAM, etal. Risk factors for anas-
tomotic failure aer total mesorectal excision of rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2005;92(2):211–216.
e Beyond TME Collaborative. Consensus statement on the multidiscipli-
nary management of patients with recurrent and primary rectal cancer be­yond total mesorectal excision planes. Br J Surg. 2013;100(8):1009–1014.
Tjandra JJ, Kilkenny JW, Buie WD, etal. Practice parameters for the manage-
ment of rectal cancer (revised). Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48(3):411–423.
van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, etal. Laparoscopic versus open sur-
gery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(3):210–218.
 T 
L

R C
Maria
Widmar and Julio Garcia-Aguilar
INTR
ODUCTION
e treatment of early rectal cancer has been a controversial subject for several decades. Radical proctectomy with total mesorectal exci­sion (TME) is the gold standard for patients with tumors localized to the bowel wall. e average local recurrence (LR) rate for stage I rectal cancer aer TME approximates 2%, and 5-year survival is as high as 95%. However, the morbidity associated with radical proc­tectomy is considerable, with postoperative complication rates approaching 35%, and the mortality rate aer abdominal perineal resection (APR) has been reported to be up to 5%. Both low anterior resection (LAR) and APR are associated with signicant rates of long­term sexual and urinary dysfunction. Bowel function aer restorative resection is compromised in at least one third of all patients, and aer APR, creation of a permanent stoma is associated with an 80% risk of long-term complications.
Local excision (LE) of rectal cancer was rst introduced by Kraske in the 1880s. It did not become popular until the 1960s, when Mason introduced the transsphincteric approach. e posterior transsphinc­teric approach is well suited to distal tumors located in the ante­rior wall of the rectum. In many centers, Mason’s procedure is the preferred approach for the repair of recto-ureteral stulae because of the access it provides. Fecal incontinence is the main complication, although rates of less than 1% have been reported in some series.
Parks was the rst to describe transanal excision (TAE) with­out division of the anal sphincter for rectal cancer, using a specially designed set of speculums to gain access to the tumor. In the 1980s, a novel platform for transanal surgery was introduced, known as transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). Since then two additional platforms, transanal endoscopic operation (TEO) and transanal mini­mally invasive surgery (TAMIS), have also been developed. In each of these three approaches, the rectum is distended by insuation of carbon dioxide and the tumor is removed under direct endoscopic visualization, using either specially designed or conventional lapa­roscopic instruments. ese platforms allow the removal of tumors located high in the rectum, beyond the reach of the conventional TAE.
e advantages of LE are lower rates of mortality and morbid­ity, with fewer long-term functional sequelae than radical resection. However, LE is a compromise oncologically because it is associated with a higher risk of LR and does not oer an opportunity to directly examine local nodes. Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines support the use of LE only in the treat­ment of carefully selected T1 rectal cancers. e oncologic outcomes for local excision of T2 tumors remain unacceptably high.
Apart from local excision, two methods are used for local destruc­tion of rectal cancer: endocavitary contact radiation (ECR) and electrocautery. Both achieve destruction of the tumor, but neither provides tissue specimens for pathologic examination. ECR has the benet of being an outpatient procedure and is typically performed with use of a local anesthetic and sedation; electrocoagulation
equires induction of general anesthesia and a hospital stay, similar
r to LE. As TAE rises in popularity, these destructive techniques are falling out of favor. However, ECR may still have a role, especially in the treatment of frail patients.
In this chapter, we will describe local treatment of rectal cancer. We will review patient selection and the techniques and outcomes associated with these approaches. Given the intense focus and research on LE for rectal cancer and its increasing popularity during the past decade, we will preferentially focus on these modalities. 
PREOPERA
Evaluation of all patients diagnosed with rectal cancer should include a full medical history, physical examination, and baseline carcinoem­bryonic antigen serum level. Digital rectal examination allows direct assessment of the location, size, and xity of low tumors and their relationship to the sphincter complex.
Although most patients with newly diagnosed rectal cancer have already had a colonoscopy before referral to a surgeon, a proctos­copy should be performed to conrm the location of the tumor. A full colonoscopy should be performed before treatment for patients who have not already had this procedure.
Endorectal ultrasound (ERUS), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography (CT) are routinely used in the staging of rectal cancer. ERUS is perhaps the most valuable tool in staging early rectal tumors. It provides high-resolution imaging of the dierent histologic layers of the bowel wall and is excellent for delin­eating T stage in early-stage rectal cancers. It can also provide short­range information about nodal status and demonstrate involvement of the mesorectum. MRI with use of an endorectal coil also images tumors within the bowel wall very accurately, although the technol­ogy is not widely used. Phased-array MRI has rapidly become the gold standard in the preoperative staging of rectal cancer. It provides high-resolution images of the rectum, mesorectum, surrounding pel­vic structures, and the muscles of the pelvic oor, in multiple planes. MRI is especially useful in staging advanced tumors, particularly in dening the level of invasion into the mesorectum, nodal status, and the relationship of the tumor to the mesorectal fascia. Unlike ERUS, MRI does not dierentiate the T stage of tumors conned to the bowel wall. A CT scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis should also be performed to exclude metastatic disease.
e patient’s functional status and baseline bowel function should be assessed before planning surgery. Some patients may not be good candidates for TME because of signicant comorbidities, and some may refuse a permanent colostomy. ese patients may benet from transanal LE as a noncurative procedure. In other cases, poor pre­operative bowel function and incontinence may diminish some of the benets of LE, making TME with a permanent stoma the better option. 
TIVE EVALUATION
152
RECTAL AND PARARECTAL REGION
153

INITIAL SELECTION

e ideal candidate for LE has a supercial, mobile tumor that is localized to the rectal wall (T1). If cure is the aim, there should be no evidence of nodal involvement or distal metastases. Although tumor size itself is not an absolute contraindication to LE, larger tumors are oen more advanced and are more likely to have metastasized to the regional lymph nodes. erefore, LE is not recommended for tumors that encompass greater than 40% of the circumference of the rectal wall or measure more than 4 cm in diameter.
In general, patients with tumors in the distal rectum are the best candidates for LE. ese patients are most likely to benet from LE because TME would require an APR with a permanent colostomy or a coloanal anastomosis. Such tumors are also easier to reach with conventional TAE techniques. However, the new transanal endo­scopic platforms allow removal of tumors located in the mid and upper rectum. 
SURGIC
Patient Preparation
Patients should undergo mechanical bowel preparation and take nothing by mouth for all of the surgical approaches described in the following sections. Bowel preparation greatly facilitates visualization during surgery. Sequential calf compression devices are applied, and preoperative antibiotics are administered. A Foley catheter is placed to decompress the bladder.
We routinely use perioperative thromboprophylaxis with unfrac­tionated or low-molecular-weight heparin. At baseline, patients undergoing LE for rectal cancer are at a higher risk of venous throm­boembolism because of their cancer diagnosis. Overall, colorec­tal surgery, especially in the pelvis, carries a higher risk of venous thromboembolism than does general surgery, but it is unclear if these data are generalizable to transanal procedures. ere does not appear to be any increased risk from use of the lithotomy or jack­knife position during LE, and at least one large study has suggested that this positioning is protective. Current recommendations by the American College of Chest Physicians support thromboprophylaxis in these patients, with optimal management consisting of combined use of low-dose heparin and compression devices. 
Transanal Excision
G
ood visualization is crucial to a successful TAE. e surgeon should wear a headlight. Positioning is aimed at providing adequate expo­sure to the tumor. For anterior tumors, the patient is in the prone jackknife position. e operating table should be in a slight Tren­delenburg position. For posteriorly situated tumors, the patient is in a modied lithotomy position, again with the table in the Trendelen­burg position. Care should be taken to provide adequate padding at all weight-bearing points. TAE can oen be performed with use of monitored sedation, although general anesthesia may need to be induced depending on the tumor size and location.
e buttocks are taped apart and a Lone Star retractor (Cooper­Surgical, Trumbull, Conn.) is used to open the anus, especially in the setting of very distal tumors. Hill-Ferguson, Pratt bivalve, or other retractors are used to expose the rectum. For more proximal tumors, narrow Deaver and short Wiley retractors are helpful.
We begin by marking the intended incision line with cautery, with at least 1-cm margins around the tumor. A local anesthetic with epinephrine can be inltrated under this margin for additional hemostasis. Especially for proximal tumors, stay-sutures are placed laterally and beyond the incision line in order to pull the tumor closer to the anal orice. A full-thickness excision is carried out
AL TECHNIQUE
with electrocautery, beginning at the far end (the more proximal) and working distally. Excision extends into the mesorectum, and the specimen is undercut through the perirectal fat. Some surgeons advocate taking a conical margin of the entire mesorectum. During deeper excision anteriorly, care must be taken to avoid injuring the vagina in females and the prostate in males.
e wound should then be extensively irrigated with water. e defect is closed with full-thickness bites transversely; these bites can be with continuous or interrupted sutures, depending on the ten­sion of the wound. Proctoscopy should be performed to conrm the patency of the lumen.
Two doses of prophylactic antibiotics are typically administered in the perioperative setting—one dose within 30 minutes of begin­ning the procedure, and one dose postoperatively. However, some centers routinely prescribe additional prophylaxis. In a single-institu­tion series from 2010, Bignell and colleagues reported a pelvic sepsis rate of 6.5% aer TEM for tumors within 2 cm of the dentate line. For more proximal tumors, the rate was 0.5%. As a result, it is now routine for patients with very distal tumors to be prescribed 5 days of antibiotic prophylaxis postoperatively. Other groups have reported use of similar extended courses of antibiotics. 
ransanal Endoscopic Microsurgery/Transanal
T
Endoscopic Operation
e TEM platform is manufactured by the Richard Wolf Medical
 Instruments Corporation (Vernon Hills, Ill.). It includes a selection of large-bore operating proctoscopes, with some beveled and some at. e proctoscope is tted with a carbon dioxide insuation system and binocular optics that provide tridimensional visualiza­tion. e TEM instruments, including a grasper, electrocautery, and other devices, are specically designed and angled for use in the proctoscope.
More recently, e Storz Corporation (El Segundo, Calif.) has developed a simplied TEO platform that also uses a large-bore operating rectoscope. However, the insuation, instrumentation, and optics are those of conventional laparoscopy. is platform is less expensive but does not provide tridimensional visualization and has less sophisticated instrumentation than the TEM platform.
As with TAE, patients are placed in either the prone jackknife or modied lithotomy position; the goal is to have the tumor positioned inferiorly in the surgeon’s eld of view. Lateral tumors may require the patient to be in the lateral decubitus position. Patients are posi­tioned with the aid of beanbags. roughout the case, the operating table may have to be moved sideways or placed in the Trendelenburg position for optimal visualization, so it is important that the patient be well secured to the table.
Once the patient is positioned, the TEM/TEO platform is mounted onto the table by means of a support arm, and aer gentle anal dilatation, the proctoscope is inserted. e rectum is insuf­ated to 15 to 26 mm Hg. Full-thickness excision is performed, as described in TAE, but with use of the specialized instruments inserted through the proctoscope. At the conclusion of the excision, the defect is closed with interrupted sutures. In cases in which there is too much tension, or when the cavity le behind in the rectum aer closure is very large, the defect may be le open to prevent abscess and dehiscence. Leaving the defect open is not an option if there is entry into the peritoneal cavity; such defects must be closed. Meticulous hemostasis should be achieved because bleeding
s among the most common postoperative complications. Luminal
i patency is checked by proctoscopy at the conclusion of the case, and the rectum is irrigated and packed. Postoperative antibiotics are administered.
Neither TEM nor TEO is well suited to resection of very distal tumors because their platforms cannot be stably mounted, nor can a good seal be created. However, both are ideal approaches for proxi­mal tumors. e surgeon is able to advance the scope to the level of
154
t
he tumor, permitting excision under direct visualization. e use of specialized and/or laparoscopic instruments allows for full-thickness resections as high as the peritoneal reection (which would not be possible by TAE). Because entry into the peritoneal cavity is possible and occasionally requires conversion to an abdominal approach in order to close the resultant wound, most TEM and TEO procedures are performed aer induction of general anesthesia. 
LocaL
TmenT of recTaL cancer
Trea
TABLE 31-1: Clinical T1N0 Rectal Cancer Treated by
Surgery Alone: Five-Year Local Recurrence, Distant Recurrence, and Disease-Specific Survival in Studies from 2004–Present
Surgical Appr
LE* 6–12 0–5 75–95.8
oach LR (%) DR (%) DSS (%)
ransanal Minimally Invasive Surgery
T
e most recent innovation in transanal excision is TAMIS, which uses the laparoscopic SILS Port (Covidien USA, Bolder, Colo.) as the platform. Aer the patient is positioned as indicated in the TEM and TEO procedures, the SILS Port is lubricated and inserted into the rec­tum. e rectum is insuated, and traditional laparoscopic instru­ments are used for the resection. is technique has also been used in conjunction with robotic surgery. As with TEM and TEO, very distal tumors are not amenable to TAMIS. 

MANAGEMENT OF THE SPECIMEN

er LE of a rectal cancer, the specimen should be pinned down
A with orientation marks and sent for pathologic examination. Margins should be inked. As mentioned previously, nal pathologic exami­nation is the ultimate determinant of whether LE is sucient or if TME is necessary. Increasing evidence suggests that T1 tumors, espe­cially those restricted to the upper two thirds of the submucosa (sm1 and 2), are the best candidates for LE alone, whereas more advanced tumors should be treated with TME. Specic high-risk features may prompt TME aer LE; these features are described in further detail in a subsequent section. 
FOLLO
R
egardless of the LE approach, follow-up is aimed at early detection of local and distant recurrences. Most recurrences aer treatment of stage I rectal cancers occur within 1.1 years aer LE, though this time frame may be delayed to 2.2 years if adjuvant therapy is provided. Nearly all recurrences happen within 5 years of surgery. Accordingly, follow-up must be rigorous and includes digital rectal examination, proctoscopy, and ERUS every 4 months for 3 years, then every 6 months for 2 additional years. Suspicious lesions should be biop­sied. Follow-up CT scans should be performed annually for 5 years. NCCN guidelines recommend that the carcinoembryonic antigen serum level should be determined every 3 to 6 months for 2 years, and then every 6 months for a total of 5 years aer LE of T2 lesions. 
RESUL
Local Excision f
C
urrent NCCN guidelines support LE only for T1 tumors with no high-risk features. A summary of recent studies reporting LR, distant recurrence (DR), and disease-specic survival (DSS) for clinical T1
rates of 2% to 29% for T1 tumors treated with TAE. In a retrospective study from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center with a lengthy follow-up period, Paty and colleagues conrmed these ndings; how­ever, they suggested that the mortality rates aer TAE for T1 tumors may be underestimated in many studies because the interval between surgery and death may be as long as 10 years. Studies from the past decade, shown in Table 31-1, also report higher rates of LR compared with TME, with long-term similar DSS rates of 87% to 100%.
W-UP
TS
or T1N0 Rectal Cancer
TAE 8–23.5 2.6–13.2 87–100
TEM/TEO/TAMIS 0– 24 4.8– 7.5 89–100
TME 0– 6 2.6– 7.9 87–100
pecic LE approach was not specied.
*A s
DR, Distant recurrence; DSS, disease-specic survival; LE, local excision; LR, local recurrence; TAE, transanal excision; TAMIS, transanal minimally
invasive surgery; TEM, transanal endoscopic microsurgery; TEO, transanal endoscopic operation; TME, total mesorectal excision.
TEM, TEO, and TAMIS may produce improved LR and survival rates in persons with T1 rectal cancer compared with traditional TAE. A randomized trial published in 1996 comparing TEM and TME for T1 tumors reported an LR rate of 4% and a 5-year survival rate of 96% aer TEM; this nding closely parallels the results reported aer TME. As shown in Table 31-1, recent studies show signicant het- erogeneity in outcomes, yet at least two groups have reported no LRs with the use of these advanced platforms. Of the few studies directly comparing TAE and TEM for T1 tumors, a series from 2002 showed higher LR rates for TAE compared with TEM in cancer resections (15% vs. 10%) and for cancer and adenoma resections combined (27% vs. 8.9%). ese encouraging results suggest that TEM, and possibly TEO and TAMIS, may improve the LR rates of local exci­sion for T1 tumors, while certainly resulting in improved functional outcomes compared with TME. 
Local Excision f
lone for cT2N0 rectal cancer leads to high rates of LR and
LE a decreased survival compared with TME. Surprisingly, a recent national study reported an increase in LE in treating not only T1 tumors but also T2 tumors. is nding is perhaps a reection that, for some patients, the benets of LE compared with radical meso­rectal resection (TME) may outweigh the oncologic risk. Table 31-2 summarizes LR, DR, and DSS rates reported by recent studies, includ­ing T2 tumors treated by LE alone. In almost all studies, the LR and DR rates aer all forms of LE were higher than aer TME. Although one study reported 5-year DSS that was comparable with TME, it is dicult to generalize these ndings given the signicant increase in recurrent disease aer LE that is documented by every other study.
Since the 1990s, several groups have attempted to improve poor oncologic results by adding chemoradiation therapy (CRT) to LE in the treatment of T2N0 tumors. Multimodality treatment consisting of CRT and surgery has been widely accepted for stage II and III rectal cancer since 1990. In the German rectal cancer study, neoadju­vant chemoradiation was associated with decreased LR and improved quality of life compared with that following adjuvant therapy. On the basis of these ndings, it has been extrapolated that CRT in conjunc­tion with LE for treating T2N0 tumors may also decrease the high LR rate associated with LE alone.
Table 31-3 summarizes recent studies of cT2N0 tumors treated
by combination CRT and LE. Overall, the addition of chemoradia­tion to TAE decreases LR rates from 33% to 42.3% to 0% to 18%. With the advanced surgical platforms, the LR rate is as low as 0% to 8% when CRT is added, compared with 25% to 50% without CRT. In the SEER database study (included in Table 31-2), analysis of a
or T2N0 Rectal Cancer
TABLE 31-2: Clinical T2N0 Rectal Cancer Treated by
Surgery Alone: Five-Year Local Recurrence, Distant Recurrence, and Disease-Specific Survival in Studies from 2004–Present
Surgical Appr
LE* NR NR 85.2-93.1
TAE 33-42.3 7.7 76.9
TEM/TEO/T
TME 7.5 2.5 90
pecic LE approach was not specied.
*A s
verall survival.
O DR, Distant recurrence; DSS, disease-specic survival; LE, local excision; LR, local recurrence; NR, not reported; TAE, transanal excision; TAMIS, transa­nal minimally invasive surgery; TEM, transanal endoscopic microsurgery; TEO, transanal endoscopic operation; TME, total mesorectal excision.
T
ABLE 31-3:
b
y CRT and Surgery: Five-Year Local Recurrence,
oach LR (%) DR (%) DSS (%)
AMIS 25-50 50 NR
-94.1
Clinical T2N0
Rectal Cancer Treated
Distant Recurrence, and Disease-Specific Survival in Studies from 2004–Present
Surgical Appr
LE* 18 12 64-92.5
TAE 10-18 10-12 82.4-90
TEM/TEO/TAMIS 0-8 2.4-17.6 82-93
TME 6 4 94
*A s
pecic LE approach was not specied.
DR, Distant recurrence; DSS, disease-specic survival; LE, local excision; LR, local recurrence; TAE, transanal excision; TAMIS, transanal minimally
invasive surgery; TEM, transanal endoscopic microsurgery; TEO, transanal endoscopic operation; TME, total mesorectal excision.
oach LR (%) DR (%) DSS (%)
RECTAL AND PARARECTAL REGION
eterogeneity exists in the studies examining salvage procedures
h
155
after LE. In 2012, Stipa and colleagues reported on 144 patients with T1 to T3 tumors resected by LE, of which 44 recurred (31%). Of the 27 patients with recurrent tumors treated by salvage TME, the overall 5-year survival was 69%. The group from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center specifically focused on stage I tumors and reported 49 successful salvage surgeries. However, more than half of these patients (55%) required extensive opera-
53% and is well below the expected survival for patients presenting with stage I tumors. A recent study from the Netherlands reported similar results, with only 58% DSS in patients who underwent salvage surgery at 3 years; however, unlike the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center experience, none of these cases required multivisceral resections.
Salvage TME aer LE may be considered in several other scenar­ios. Proponents of “immediate salvage” argue that positive margins aer LE and high-risk features on the nal pathologic examination should prompt TME within 4 to 6 weeks of LE. Tumors charac­terized by lymphovascular invasion, poor dierentiation, or muci­nous components are more likely to recur and therefore should not be treated by LE; this appears to be the case even if the resection specimen itself has negative margins and no positive lymph nodes. For this subset of patients with more aggressive tumors, LE would function essentially as an excisional biopsy. Preliminary studies have shown nearly 89% survival rates in patients who undergo “immediate salvage.”
e concern in both immediate and delayed salvage TME is whether a complete oncologic resection can be achieved aer trans­anal LE. Aer all, in ideal circumstances, LE techniques involve full-thickness resections and possible breach of the mesorectum. Vio­lation of this “holy plane” may compromise the integrity of an onco­logic resection of the rectum at a later date. In addition, some studies show increased complication rates aer salvage surgery, including high rates of permanent stoma, even when salvage is performed in the immediate setting. 
TERNATIVE TO LOCAL EXCISION:
AL
ENDOCAVITARY CONTACT RADIATION
all subset of patients who had undergone CRT and LE showed
sm oncologic equivalence to radical resection at 5 years. A random­ized trial published in 2012 also showed equivalent DSS, LR, and DR rates among 100 patients undergoing either TME or LE aer neoadjuvant CRT.
It is important to note that a retrospective analysis of outcomes comparing LE and TME aer CRT for T2NO rectal cancer is ques­tionable given the heterogeneity of the literature. In addition, it is dicult to identify the true impact of this approach on survival. e complications of neoadjuvant CRT may outweigh the improved oncologic benets for some patients, who would not have undergone irradiation had they proceeded directly to TME. In light of these con­troversies, the oncologic outcomes of CRT and LE for T2N0 rectal tumors are currently being studied in a prospective multi-institution clinical trial (ACOSOG Z6041). 
Salvage Resection after Local Excision
itical issue in determining the feasibility of LE for rectal can-
A cr cer is management of recurrent cancer and determining whether outcomes in these “salvaged” patients are worse than if the patients had undergone TME from the outset. LR is the most common form of recurrence after LE, and it is a clear indication for salvage TME. Overall, the survival rates for these patients appear to be lower than for those who undergo TME first. However, significant
J
ean Papillon in Lyon, France, popularized ECR for early stage rectal cancer from 1950 to 1990. e technique involves the use of the Phil­lips RT 50 machine, with an endorectal probe capable of delivering up to 20 Gy in 2 to 3 minutes directly onto the tumor. Only light sedation is necessary for most patients, and the procedure can be per­formed on an outpatient basis.
According to Papillon’s protocol, ECR is restricted to patients with T1/T2, N0 tumors that measure less than 5 cm in diameter and encompass less than 50% of the bowel wall circumference. Papillon reported an LR rate of 10% in 312 patients with stage I disease and 75% 5-year survival. Specifically, in 158 patients with T1N0 tumors, the 5-year LR rate was 3.8%, and the nodal failure rate was 4%. In the United States, authors of a single-center study of 40 patients with T1N0 tumors reported an LR rate of 22.5%. Additional applications have included ECR after transanal exci­sion, as well as combined external beam radiotherapy and ECR for T2 tumors, with some success. In a series of 40 patients with cT2N0 tumors, the 5-year LR rate was 20%, and 5-year overall survival was 80%.
Despite these encouraging results, ECR has never gained wide­spread popularity. In addition, production of the Phillips RT 50 machine was discontinued in the 1980s, and thus in the 1990s, few centers had expertise in this technique. In 2009, the new Papillon 50 machine was introduced, including some functional improvements compared with the original model. At least three clinical trials are currently under way to assess outcomes aer ECR for rectal cancer. 
156
LocaL
TmenT of recTaL cancer
Trea
CONCLUSIONS: ALGORITHM FOR TREA
Figur
cer. In summary, LE appears to be adequate for T1 tumors without high-risk features. LE alone is not adequate treatment for T2 tumors in patients who are able to undergo TME/radical resection. Clinical trials are under way to determine if the addition of neoadjuvant CRT improves oncologic outcomes aer LE for T2 tumors. By sparing patients a radical proctectomy, this approach will likely lead to fewer complications, better postoperative bowel function, and better qual­ity of life.
LE with positive margins is a clear indication for salvage TME, but this procedure may involve a larger resection and increased compli­cation rates. Furthermore, in this setting, long-term outcomes appear
TMENT BY LOCAL EXCISION
e 31-1 shows an algorithm for LE in the treatment of rectal can-
T1N0
to be less favorable than in patients who undergo index TME. e preliminary results of immediate salvage aer LE for tumors with high-risk pathologic features are encouraging, although future stud­ies are needed to validate these ndings.
Overall, acceptance of LE in the treatment of rectal cancer con­tinues to grow worldwide. Current investigations are aimed at expanding its application to higher staged and more proximal tumors through innovative platforms and combined modality treatment. Ultimately, the key to treating rectal cancer adequately by LE lies in careful patient selection. Optimal imaging and accurate staging is crucial. An evolving understanding of the prognostic value of tumor response to neoadjuvant therapy is also promising. It is hoped that these approaches will one day lead to excellent oncologic outcomes while reducing the signicant morbidity associated with the current gold standard, TME.
T2N0
(investigational)
Neoadjuvant CRT
TAE TME TEO
TAMIS
FIGURE 31-1
transanal minimall
Alg
– Margins
–High-risk
features
Observe
orithm for local excision in the treatment of rectal cancer. CRT, Chemoradiation therapy; TAE, transanal excision; TAMIS,
y invasive surgery;
, transanal endoscopic operation;
TEO
+ Margins
Reexcision or
salvage
resection
+High-risk
features
Observe or
salvage
resection
total mesorectal excision.
TME,
+Recurrence
Salvage
resection
L R
R C:
M 
V
anessa W. Hui, Harvey G. Moore, and José G. Guillem
ODUCTION
INTR
An estimated 40,000 new cases of rectal cancer were diagnosed in the United States in 2015, encompassing almost one third of all newly diagnosed colorectal cancers. In 4% to 19% of these patients, pelvic recurrence will develop aer curative resection. ese patients oen experience signicant pelvic pain, dysesthesia, tenesmus, and other local complications that severely impair quality of life. Early diagno­sis and aggressive surgical treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer may be justied in carefully selected patients and may possibly pal­liate these problems, as well as potentially prolong disease-free and overall survival. 
NOMENCLA RECURRENCE
S
everal classication systems have been used to describe pelvic recurrences. e most useful of these systems is an anatomic clas­sication of recurrence because it facilitates discussion of possible treatment options and allows for meaningful comparisons of prog­nosis (Fig. 32-1).
e anatomic classication of recurrence separates the pelvis into axial, anterior, posterior, and lateral regions. e axial region includes both mucosal and perirectal so tissue recurrences, which may occur aer a transanal or transsphincteric excision, at the anastomosis aer a low anterior resection (LAR) with primary reconstruction, and in the mesorectum. Axial recurrences also include recurrence of dis­ease in the perineum aer an abdominoperineal resection (APR), although these recurrences are relatively rare. Anterior recurrences involve the genitourinary tract, including the vagina, uterus, urinary bladder, and/or distal ureters in women and the seminal vesicles, prostate, urinary bladder, and/or distal ureters in men. e sacrum and/or pelvis are involved in posterior pelvic recurrences; whereas lateral recurrences can invade into adjacent pelvic sidewall structures such as the iliac vessels, pelvic ureters, obturator lymph nodes, adja­cent nerves, and muscle, as well as the bony pelvis. It is important to note that pelvic recurrences may oen involve multiple anatomic regions, and the degree of involvement in each will dictate whether the patient is a candidate for radical salvage resection. 
CLINIC SUSPECTED PELVIC RECURRENCE
P
atients who have had surgery for rectal cancer are followed up clini­cally at regular intervals. Asymptomatic recurrences may be found by digital examination, with routine imaging, or upon endoscopy. Symptoms such as a change in bowel habits, rectal bleeding, pain, and obstipation may herald a local recurrence, which is likely to be more extensive than recurrences found incidentally. Vaginal bleeding
TURE OF PELVIC
AL EVALUATION FOR

F-
or urinary symptoms may reect involvement of the genitourinary tract, whereas perineal pain or a persistent perineal sinus aer APR may reect a perineal recurrence or disease involving the sacrum. Leg edema and/or sciatic pain are ominous symptoms and suggest extensive pelvic sidewall involvement.
Physical examination should include a thorough examination of the abdomen, including palpation for an enlarged liver or tumor mass. A digital rectal examination is essential for any patient who has had LAR or local excision because anastomotic recurrences may be palpable and the digital examination will provide information with regard to the size of the recurrence, its location relative to the upper part of the anorectal ring, and the degree of xation to the luminal wall. is information may indicate involvement of surrounding pel­vic structures. Endoscopy may help dene the proximal margin of the recurrence, the extent of the luminal involvement, and the over­all extent of disease. Examination of the groin and supraclavicular regions is required to exclude adenopathy. Assessment of neuromus­cular function in the lower extremities can identify decits resulting from peripheral nerve involvement by lateral tumor recurrence. In women, a bimanual pelvic examination may reveal disease involving the rectovaginal septum, vagina, uterus, and adnexal structures. e perineal region aer APR also should be closely examined to detect tenderness, a mass, or a sinus/stula. A pelvic examination in women aer APR facilitates the detection and extent of disease involvement. In patients with pelvic recurrence for whom radical surgery is being considered, a complete colonoscopy should be performed preopera­tively to rule out synchronous neoplasms.
Although the interpretation of endorectal ultrasound (ERUS) images is subjective, especially in patients who have already under­gone a surgical procedure, ERUS can detect pelvic masses and enlarged lymph nodes and can be used for an ERUS-directed biopsy of masses. In addition, a transvaginal ultrasound may be used in female patients who have undergone APR.
Computed tomography (CT) with use of both intravenous and oral contrast material may be useful for the detection and staging of local recurrence, as well as distant metastases. Asymmetric thick­ening of the bowel wall, obliteration of peri-anastomotic fascial or fat planes, a presacral or lateral sidewall mass, or enlarged regional lymph nodes are evidence of local recurrence. However, both surgery and radiation may lead to brosis and linear streaks in the perirectal fat, an appearance indistinguishable from a true recurrence. Mag­netic resonance imaging (MRI) adds further anatomic detail per­taining to the depth of tumor inltration into the rectal wall and has a negative predictive value of 93% to 100% for tumor invasion into adjacent structures in cases of locally recurrent rectal cancer. is additional information may be useful in preoperative planning and assessing the extent of an en bloc resection necessary to achieve a curative resection.
Positron emission tomography with CT (PET-CT) is an imag­ing modality that combines both anatomic and metabolic informa­tion for detecting recurrent disease. PET utilizes the glucose analog
157
158
Anterior
(GU)
FIGURE 32-1
ecurrence can be classified on the basis of the anatomic region(s)
r of the pelvis involved with disease. Axial recurrences can involve (1) the anastomosis, the perineum after abdominoperineal resection. Anterior recurrences involve the genitourinary (GU) tract including the bladder, vagina, uterus, seminal vesicles, and prostate. Posterior recurrences involve the sacrum and presacral fascia. Lateral recurrences (not shown) involve the soft tissues of the pelvic sidewall and the lateral bony pelvis.
-uorodeoxyglucose to distinguish postoperative brosis and
18F
LocaLLy RecuRRent RectaL canceR:
2.
1.
3.
Axial
1. Anastomotic
2. Mesorectal
3. Perineal
Regions of rectal cancer pelvic recurrence. Pelvic
(2) the mesorectum or perirectal soft tissue, or (3)
Posterior (sacrum)
Manage
radiation changes from hypermetabolic cancer cells. PET-CT may also identify distant metastases that preclude an attempt at curative resection. Although not typically used for surveillance aer primary rectal cancer resection, PET-CT may be helpful in select cases when information from other examinations regarding local and distant recurrence is inconclusive. 
MANA
GEMENT OF PELVIC
RECURRENCE
N
ineteen percent to 52% of local recurrences are conned to the pel­vis and thus are amenable to potentially curative repeat resection. Aer the diagnosis of pelvic recurrence is conrmed, the disease pre­sentation usually falls into one of four categories based on the pres­ence of extrapelvic disease, resectability of the recurrence, and the presence of symptoms. During the course of therapy, it is important to be alert to changes in symptoms because progression may require an alteration in management. Patient age and comorbidities are also important considerations in formulating a treatment strategy.
ory I: Asymptomatic Local and Distant
Categ Recurrence
ecause curative options for patients with concomitant local and
B distant recurrences are few, treatment should be oered judiciously, particularly for young asymptomatic patients. A small, highly select
Ment
and Fo
LLo
w-up
group may benet from resection of two sites of isolated disease (e.g., pelvis and lung or liver). Data supporting the ecacy of this approach in curing patients with recurrence are limited. 
ory II: Symptomatic Local Recurrence in the
Categ Presence of Distant Disease
e goal in treating symptomatic local recurrence in the presence
 of distant unresectable metastases should be to minimize morbidity and maximize palliation. Treatment options for patients with rectal bleeding from a local recurrence include fulguration, radiation, com­bined modality therapy (CMT), or palliative resection. Radiation or CMT also may be eective for the palliative treatment of pain, neuro­logic symptoms, and symptoms related to mass eect. Safe palliative options for patients with bowel obstruction due to recurrence within 10 to 12 cm of the anal verge include fulguration, laser ablation, gas­trointestinal bypass, diversion, and endoscopic stenting. 
ory III: Unresectable, Isolated Local
Categ Recurrence
T
reatment options for patients with isolated, unresectable pelvic recurrence who have not received large doses of external beam radia­tion include preoperative CMT. A trial of external beam radiation with radiosensitizing 5-uorouracil–based chemotherapy may result in a response that allows resection with negative histologic margins. Limitations include entrapment of small bowel in the pelvis aer the initial resection and compromise in luminal diameter with impend­ing obstruction. In these persons, a diverting colostomy or ileostomy will prevent the development of clinical obstruction while the patient receives CMT. 
ory IV: Resectable Isolated Local Recurrence
Categ
urgical resection is the only curative option for patients with iso-
S lated pelvic recurrence. e likelihood of a successful resection and the surgical options available to these patients are dictated, in part, by their primary procedure and the region of the recurrence. Patients may benet from preoperative therapy in the form of radiation, che­motherapy, or CMT as a way of achieving an R0 resection (generally dened as complete resection with negative microscopic margins), which is associated with long-term local control.
Endoscopic stenting for stenosing recurrent rectal cancer may be considered as a temporary “bridging” approach for the facilitation of bowel preparation. However, if the stent remains in situ for a long time it may migrate distally, leading to worsening tenesmus and pain. Patients with a near-obstructing recurrence are at signicant risk for progression to complete obstruction as a result of the initial swelling and edema that occur with external beam radiation and thus may benet from a “bridging stent” or diverting ostomy before radiation treatment begins.
Cystoscopy with bilateral ureteric stent placement is recom­mended for all patients about to undergo surgery for a pelvic recurrence, especially when bladder involvement is suspected. The operative approach begins with an exploratory laparotomy, at which time up to a third of cases will be found to be unresect­able. If unresectable extrapelvic and/or locally recurrent disease is detected and confirmed upon frozen section testing, a diverting loop colostomy or ileostomy is an option in cases of impending obstruction.
Overall, 32% to 64% of patients with locally recurrent rectal can­cer are able to undergo a curative R0 resection. Reported 5-year over­all survival for patients undergoing R0 resection ranges from 30% to 72%, with median overall survival signicantly higher than for per­sons who undergo noncurative resections (7.1 vs. 1.9 years).
RECTAL AND PARARECTAL REGION
159
Axial Recurrences
Axial recurrences may represent a failure to obtain adequate dis­tal margins during LAR, tumor implantation into the mesorectum during local excision, or perineal tumor implantation during APR. Sphincter preservation may be an option for high axial-anastomotic recurrences. However, the quality of life of persons undergoing a resection of locally recurrent disease with sphincter preservation may be diminished. Furthermore, signicant lateral extension oen requires a combined abdominal-perineal approach to ensure nega­tive circumferential resection margins. Although wide local excision of a perineal so tissue recurrence aer APR may render the patient free of disease, the perineal recurrence is oen a harbinger of disease deeper in the pelvis, which would require a combined abdominal­perineal approach to ensure a curative R0 resection. Regardless of the extent of the surgery, it is important to avoid inadvertent injury to the small bowel and other surrounding structures. e outcome for patients with recurrent disease limited to the bowel wall is much bet­ter than for patients with disease involving other regions. 
Anterior Recurrences
Recurrences involving the genitourinary tract require en bloc removal of involved pelvic viscera to achieve negative histologic margins. A pos­terior pelvic exenteration (i.e., an APR with total abdominal hysterec­tomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and posterior vaginectomy) is indicated for anterior pelvic recurrence in women with isolated uterine/ vaginal involvement but no bladder involvement. A partial cystectomy or total pelvic exenteration (TPE) is required when the tumor involves the bladder. In women who have undergone a hysterectomy, an ante­rior recurrence generally mandates a TPE because usually no tissue plane exists between the recurrence and the bladder. Aer cystectomy, urinary drainage is provided by either an ileal conduit or a continent pouch. Although resection of the anterior viscera may facilitate negative resection margins anteriorly, obliterated anatomic planes secondary to previous surgery (especially APR) and radiation may limit the ability to ensure negative posterior and lateral resection margins. For this reason, whenever possible, the initial surgical approach should be in an unoper­ated plane where it has not been violated by previous surgery.
Pelvic exenteration is a technically challenging procedure with signicant morbidity and should not be attempted unless a curative R0 resection is anticipated. Complication rates aer TPE range from 37% to 100%, with an in-house hospital mortality rate of 0% to 25%. However, more recent studies suggest that perioperative mortali­ties can be as low as 0% to 5.5%. In carefully selected patients, cura­tive pelvic exenteration may be associated with a 3-year local repeat recurrence rate of 40% to 60%, a 3-year disease-free survival rate of 22% to 57%, and a 3-year overall survival rate of 32% to 79% with a median survival of 2.4 years (some investigators report a disease­specic survival rate as long as 4 years). 
Posterior Recurrences
In select posterior recurrences where sacral invasion is limited to the presacral fascia or supercial periosteum, an en bloc resection by periosteal elevation may achieve negative margins. When bony inva­sion of the sacrum is present, R0 resection can still be achieved using a combined abdominal-sacral resection. A sacrectomy may be per­formed in combination with an APR or pelvic exenteration depend­ing on the extent of pelvic disease. Such resections usually entail a lengthy operation with signicant blood loss. e most potentially morbid aspect of an abdominal-sacral resection is the bony tran­section, which involves a signicant risk of hemorrhage and sacral nerve root damage. Major morbidities associated with this procedure include intestinal and urinary stula, wound complications, pulmo­nary embolus, and bladder dysfunction.
Bladder dysfunction is related to the level of sacral transection. Sacral transection below S3 does not usually aect urinary conti­nence, but mild urinary dysfunction occurs with unilateral division
of S2 or S1. Bladder dysfunction occurs when both S2 nerve roots are resected and complete bladder denervation occurs aer bilateral divi­sion of the S1 nerve roots. e feasibility and safety of sacral resection has been demonstrated by several centers, with a reported in-hospital mortality of 0% to 3%. 
Lateral Recurrences
Recurrences along the pelvic sidewall are the least likely to be sal­vaged by resection. ese tumors oen adhere to the bony pelvis and/ or invade the sciatic nerve. Patients may present with disabling pain radiating to the buttocks, perineum, and posterior thighs. Ureteral obstruction due to recurrent disease is also associated with a low like­lihood of R0 resection. Iliac nodal disease can be removed en bloc with a local so tissue resection that may involve a partial ureterec­tomy and partial resection of major arteries and veins. 
THE R
OLE OF CHEMORADIATION FOR
PELVIC RECURRENCE
eoadjuvant therapy with chemoradiation or chemotherapy alone
N should be considered in all cases of locally recurrent rectal cancer because it may help salvage xed inoperable or borderline resectable recurrences and possibly improve survival. Compared with radiation alone, neoadjuvant chemoradiation has been shown to improve the likelihood of resectability, prolong the time to repeat recurrence, and lengthen overall survival. e ecacy of chemotherapy for treating a local recurrence aer rectal cancer resection and preoperative CMT may be limited.
Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) allows the delivery of a large dose of radiation directly to the bed of resection without aect­ing healthy surrounding tissues. IORT can be delivered to areas of questionable or microscopically positive resection margins either at the time of resection via electron beams from a linear accelerator or aer surgery by implantation of radioactive sources (brachytherapy). At our institution, IORT is delivered with high-dose-rate brachyther­apy via a exible remote aerloader called the Harrison-Anderson­Mick applicator. is applicator conforms well to the tumor bed and is capable of delivering the maximum dose to the proposed target area while sparing the surrounding healthy tissues. e procedure is performed in a dedicated shielded operating room to avoid moving the patient during the operation.
IORT is generally combined with neoadjuvant chemoradiation in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer. Patients undergoing a curative salvage resection with neoadjuvant chemoradiation and IORT have a 5-year overall survival of 46% to 56% and 5-year local control of 44% to 69%. Orthovoltage and photon beam IORT are alternative techniques currently under investigation.
Associated radiation toxicity remains a major issue, and despite using lead shields to protect adjacent so tissues such as the ureter, iliac vessels, and sciatic nerve, these structures may nevertheless be damaged by the combination of extensive surgery and radiation ther­apy. Researchers at our institution are currently investigating the use of radiation dose painting during high-dose rate IORT as a means of enhancing local control while minimizing radiation exposure and toxicity to other sites. 
PREOPERA
TIVE AND
INTRAOPERATIVE CONSIDERATIONS
G
iven the complexity of locally recurrent rectal cancer, a multi­disciplinary treatment approach is essential. ese cases are best presented and discussed in a multidisciplinary team conference in collaboration with radiologists, pathologists, surgeons, and medical and radiation oncologists in order to develop an individualized treat­ment strategy and sequence. Because of the extent of involvement
160
LocaLLy RecuRRent RectaL canceR:
Manage
Ment
and Fo
LLo
w-up
TABLE 32-1: A Multidisciplinary Approach to
Recurrent Rectal Cancer
Specialist Role
adiologist Preoperative planning
R
Pathologist Preoperative and intraoperative
conrmation
Medical oncologist Sequence of therapies
Radiation oncologist EBRT and/or IORT
Urologist Cystoscopy, ureteral stenting, and/
or en bloc resections
Orthopedic surgeon and
En bloc resections
neurosurgeon
Plastic surgeon Reconstruction
Enterostomal therapist Stomal marking and training
Colorectal surgeon Coordination of overall care
EBR
T, External beam radiation therapy; IORT, intraoperative radiation
therapy.
o
f local structures, surgical specialists such as urologists, orthope­dic surgeons, and/or neurosurgeons may be required to assist with cystoscopy, ureteral stent placement, urologic organ resection and/ or reconstruction, and bone resection whenever sacral invasion is suspected (Table 32-1).
Reoperative surgery in a previously irradiated eld is oen asso­ciated with poor wound healing. To diminish the likelihood of this complication, plastic surgeons should assist in the reconstruction of the perineum with myocutaneous aps. Patients should be evalu­ated preoperatively and undergo marking by enterostomal therapists for sites of stoma placement (fecal and/or urinary). In addition, it is important to ensure that medical comorbidities are optimally man­aged prior to surgery.
e surgical procedure should begin with an exploration to exclude intraabdominal distant disease. If distant disease is excluded, then dissection in the presacral space is pursued. Frozen sections are helpful in dening margins of resection when distin­guishing between brosis and malignancy is dicult. e lateral planes are the most challenging because of the proximity of essen­tial vascular structures. Ideally, all gross disease should be removed, which may or may not require a wide en bloc resection. A key ele­ment in extensive surgical resection is to know when to stop because leaving gross disease is unlikely to change the overall outcome in a patient with an unresectable recurrence. Once the surgical removal of the cancer is complete, proper mapping of the areas of concern is performed in conjunction with the radiation oncology team to target the best site for IORT (Box 32-1). 
RECONSTR
UCTION OPTIONS FOR
PERINEAL DEFECTS
ealing of the perineal defect aer APR for recurrent rectal can-
H cer may be prolonged and dicult, especially in patients who have undergone preoperative CMT. In select patients, optimal healing may be achieved with one of a variety of myocutaneous aps. ese aps, based on a nonirradiated vascular pedicle, provide sucient bulk to ll the dead space that follows a wide pelvic resection and sig­nicantly lowers the perineal wound complication rate (16%) when compared with primary closure of the perineum (44%).
X 32-1:
BO
•E •A •A •Pur •Usef •K •W •W
hen performing surgery with the goal of a curative R0 resection for locally
* W
ecurrent rectal cancer, a sequence of decisions is necessary to facilitate the best
r possible outcomes for the patient. During intraoperative exploration, if a curative resection is deemed unlikely or becomes prohibitively dangerous, the colorectal surgeon should recognize the need to stop because attempting a resection with the potential for significant morbidity will either leave behind residual or gross disease and/or is instantaneously life-threatening and would offer the patient no survival benefit.
I
ORT, Intraoperative radiation therapy.
Operativ
xclude
traabdominalspread
in ssessthepresacralspace ssessthelateralplanes
sue
ide
aw
rozensections,asneeded
nowwhentostop
iththeIORTteam,maptheareaof iththeplasticsurgeryteam,planreconstruction
e Decisions
locresection,asneeded
enb
*
co
ncern
Reconstruction options include gracilis (unilateral or bilateral), gluteus muscle, and vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) aps. Advantages of the gracilis ap, based on the medial circumex femoral branch of the profunda femoris artery, include proximity and lack of donor-site morbidity. Disadvantages include a tenuous vascular pedicle and oen insucient muscle bulk to ll a large pelvic defect. e VRAM ap is similar to that used for breast reconstruction except that it is based on the deep inferior epigastric vessels. Advantages include a durable vascular pedicle, good muscle bulk, and ease of creation, result­ing in minimal prolongation of operating time. When contemplating use of a VRAM ap, careful preoperative planning is essential to ensure that no prior surgery on the donor site would compromise blood supply to the vascular pedicle and that the contralateral site is adequate for stoma placement(s). In cases in which blood supply is an issue, a preoperative CT angiogram of the chest and abdomen may help evaluate the vascula­ture of the VRAM and guide the choice of ap for reconstruction. 
SUMMAR
e management of patients with recurrent rectal cancer requires
Y
careful preoperative evaluation of the patient and the recurrence. A multidisciplinary team conference should be conducted to establish an individualized strategy for treatment. Radical repeat resection for carefully selected patients with pelvic recurrence oers excellent pal­liation, and in combination with CMT (including IORT), it results in long-term survival in up to one third of patients. Improvements in conventional imaging modalities including ERUS, MRI, CT, and PET-CT may facilitate early diagnosis of local recurrence and accu­rate assessment of extent of local involvement, improving patient selection and the likelihood of a curative resection.
g g e
u
S
A
Boyle KM, Sagar PM, Chalmers AG, etal. Surgery for locally recurrent rectal
Chessin DB, Hartley J, Cohen AM, etal. Rectus ap reconstruction decreases
Dozois EJ, Privitera A, Holubar SD, et al. High sacrectomy for locally re-
Dresen RC, Gosens MJ, Martijn H, etal. Radical resection aer IORT-con-
S t
lektiar KM, Zelefsky MJ, Paty PB, et al. High-dose-rate intraoperative
brachytherapy for recurrent colorectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
2000;48:219–226.
cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48:929–937.
perineal wound complications aer pelvic chemoradiation and surgery: a
cohort study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2005;12:104–110.
current rectal cancer: can long-term survival be achieved? J Surg Oncol.
2011;103:105–109.
taining multimodality treatment is the most important determinant for
outcome in patients treated for locally recurrent rectal cancer. Ann Surg
Oncol. 2008;15:1937–1947.
e d
R
e
a d i n g