ﺑﺎﺯﮔﺸﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻔﺤﻪ ﻗﺒﻠﯽ
خرید پکیج
تعداد آیتم قابل مشاهده باقیمانده : 3 مورد
نسخه الکترونیک
medimedia.ir

Surgical treatment of rectal cancer

Surgical treatment of rectal cancer
Literature review current through: Jan 2024.
This topic last updated: Aug 30, 2023.

INTRODUCTION — Surgery is the cornerstone of curative therapy for rectal adenocarcinoma [1]. Depending upon the clinical stage, size, and location of the primary tumor, a rectal cancer can be treated with either local or radical excision. A local excision is usually performed transanally. A radical excision is performed transabdominally with either a sphincter-sparing procedure such as low anterior resection or an abdominoperineal resection. Rectal cancers that have invaded adjacent organs may require a multivisceral resection.

In this topic, we provide an overview of various surgical techniques that are used to treat rectal cancer. Specific techniques are discussed in other dedicated topics:

(See "Transanal endoscopic surgery (TES)".)

(See "Radical resection of rectal cancer".)

(See "Abdominal perineal resection (APR): Open technique".)

(See "Minimally invasive techniques: Left/sigmoid colectomy and proctectomy".)

Diagnosis, staging, and nonsurgical treatment of rectal cancer can be found elsewhere:

(See "Clinical presentation, diagnosis, and staging of colorectal cancer".)

(See "Pretreatment local staging evaluation for rectal cancer".)

(See "Overview of the management of rectal adenocarcinoma".)

SELECTING A SURGICAL TREATMENT — For patients with rectal cancer, the choice of a surgical treatment must take into consideration the following factors [2]:

The distance of the cancer from the anal verge (ie, low, mid-, or upper rectal cancer) (figure 1) as well as the distance from the lower border of the tumor to the top of the anorectal ring (which informs surgical decision making for sphincter preservation)

Presence of invasion into the lateral pelvic walls and/or other intra-abdominal organs

Size of the cancer

Presence of regional lymph node metastases

Patient's pelvic anatomy

Patient's presurgical anorectal sphincter function

Whether or not the patient can tolerate transabdominal surgery

A stepwise approach to selecting the appropriate surgical technique based upon the pretreatment clinical disease stage and patient factors is outlined in the accompanying algorithms (algorithm 1 and algorithm 2 and algorithm 3)and described in detail in another topic. (See "Overview of the management of rectal adenocarcinoma", section on 'Management according to initial clinical stage'.)

The eligibility criteria for each surgical technique are described in detail in the respective sections below.

LOCAL EXCISION — Performed transanally, local excision removes both the tumor and adjoining rectal tissue in one specimen (ie, full-thickness excision) without tumor fragmentation, which permits pathologic assessment of inked margins, histologic differentiation, vascular involvement, and depth of invasion. However, it does not excise or stage mesorectal lymph nodes and therefore can miss nodal metastasis or tumor cell deposits in the mesorectum.

Thus, local excision is only appropriate for early-stage rectal cancer (cT0 or cT1) without high-risk features with which the risk of lymph node metastasis is low, and for those with more advanced diseases but who are medically unfit for radical surgery (algorithm 1 and algorithm 2).

Criteria for local excision — Patients with an early rectal cancer that meets all of the criteria below are eligible for local excision (algorithm 1) [2-7]:

Superficial T0 or T1 rectal cancer (table 1)

Tumor less than 3 cm in diameter

Tumor involves <30 percent of the bowel lumen circumference

Tumor is mobile and nonfixed

Able to achieve clear margins with local excision

Favorable histologic features based upon biopsy (ie, well- to moderately differentiated cancer, no lymphovascular or perineural invasion)

No radiographic evidence of metastatic disease to regional nodes (N0)

Patient compliant with aggressive postoperative surveillance

Before attempting local excision on a low polyp, one should consider if the procedure will impact future total mesorectal excision (TME) procedures if one is required. A local excision can disrupt tissue planes in the low rectum near the sphincter such that abdominoperineal resection (APR) is required instead of sphincter-saving procedures such as low anterior resection (LAR).

Patients with more advanced diseases (eg, cT2 or higher) may also be treated with local excision after sufficient counselling if they (algorithm 2) [8,9]:

Have medical comorbidities that preclude any transabdominal surgery

Refuse any transabdominal surgery

Have a short life expectancy due to metastatic disease

Patients with more advanced disease (T2 or greater) may benefit from neoadjuvant therapy prior to local excision and may require further surgery or adjuvant treatment after local excision, depending upon the final pathologic staging. (See "Overview of the management of rectal adenocarcinoma", section on 'Clinical T2N0 and cT1N0 not amenable to local excision'.)

Techniques of local excision — Technically, local excision involves full-thickness excision, ideally with a ≥10 mm grossly normal circumferential margin with a depth down to perirectal fat providing a minimum of a 2-mm-deep margin [10].

Lesions in the very distal rectum (<5 cm from anal verge) are best excised with conventional transanal excision (TAE) because they may be obscured by the transanal endoscopic surgery (TES) platform.

TES is ideal for local excision of lesions in the mid- to proximal rectum up to 15 cm from the anal verge. (See "Transanal endoscopic surgery (TES)".)

Rectal cancers in the mid or upper rectum that were unreachable by TAE were historically excised with one of the posterior techniques (eg, the transsphincteric [York-Mason] procedure [11] or the transsacral [Kraske] procedure [12]). However, these techniques have largely been supplanted by TES because of higher morbidity [13,14]. They remain a salvage option for treating local recurrences in the presacral space following an APR or for treating fistulas arising after an LAR or prostatectomy [15].

Outcomes of local excision — Outcomes for local excision are dependent upon the T stage of the rectal cancer. As an example, in a meta-analysis of 73 studies and over 4600 patients, there was a substantial risk of local recurrence in patients who received no additional treatment after local excision, especially those with high-risk pT1 (13.6 percent) and pT2 rectal cancer (28.9 percent) [16]. The lowest recurrence risk was provided by completion total mesorectal excision (TME; 4 percent for both pT1 and pT2); adjuvant chemoradiotherapy had outcomes comparable to those of completion TME for high-risk pT1 tumors (3.9 percent) but showed a higher risk for pT2 tumors (14.7 percent).

The rate of local recurrence following local excision varies from 7 to 21 percent for T1 lesions and is consistently higher than that after radical resection [17-19]. Subsequent radical resection with TME is typically recommended if pathologic examination of the local excision specimen reveals significant risk factors like deeper T stage, inadequate margins, poor differentiation, submucosal invasion depth >1 mm or deep submucosal (SM3) invasion, tumor budding, or lymphovascular or perineural invasion [20]. (See 'Low anterior resection' below.)

In general, local excision alone is not an oncologically adequate treatment for cT2 lesions, because of high local recurrence rates (26 to 47 percent) and an elevated risk for occult nodal metastasis [21]. Radical resection with TME is typically recommended under these circumstances. The use of local excision in combination with either neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemoradiation therapy for distal T2 lesions is currently being investigated [22,23]. (See "Neoadjuvant therapy for rectal adenocarcinoma", section on 'T1-2N0 tumors'.)

If radical resection is indicated based on pathology of the local excision, but the patient refuses or is unfit for radical resection, such patients should be considered for adjuvant chemoradiation, followed by surveillance for a potentially salvageable recurrence [24,25]. The performance of local excision after neoadjuvant chemoradiation has been studied for select T1/T2 lesions [8,23,26,27] but is complicated by high morbidities (eg, rectal pain, suture line dehiscence) [28,29].

LOW ANTERIOR RESECTION — Patients with invasive rectal adenocarcinomas who are not candidates for local excision should undergo radical transabdominal surgery (algorithm 2 and algorithm 3). A sphincter-sparing resection such as low anterior resection (LAR) is preferred if a negative distal margin can be achieved. An abdominoperineal resection (APR) is required if an adequate distal margin cannot be obtained. (See "Overview of the management of rectal adenocarcinoma", section on 'Clinical T3-4, N0-2 or T2, N1-2' and "Radical resection of rectal cancer".)

Criteria for low anterior resection — Patients with a rectal cancer that meets all of the criteria below should undergo a sphincter-sparing resection:

Invasive rectal cancer cT2-4 (table 1).

A negative distal margin can be achieved. (See "Radical resection of rectal cancer", section on 'Distal margin'.)

Adequate presurgical anorectal sphincter function.

Techniques of low anterior resection — An LAR entails partial or total resection of the rectum followed by a colorectal or coloanal anastomosis to reestablish intestinal continuity.

For transabdominal radical resections, both LAR and APR, it is also crucial to perform a total mesorectal excision (TME) and an adequate lymph node dissection. Whenever feasible, the patient's intestinal continuity should be reestablished to preserve their anorectal function (ie, fecal continence). Such surgical principles are discussed in another topic. (See "Radical resection of rectal cancer", section on 'Principles of radical resection'.)

The techniques of laparoscopic and robotic proctectomy are also discussed in another topic. (See "Minimally invasive techniques: Left/sigmoid colectomy and proctectomy", section on 'Laparoscopic/robotic proctectomy'.)

An example of the laparoscopic approach to a sigmoid colectomy and LAR can be found in the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) video library.

An example of the laparoscopic nerve-sparing proctectomy with mesorectal excision for rectal cancer can also be found in the SAGES video library.

An example of the laparoscopic approach to an LAR and transanal mucosectomy with construction of a J-pouch can be found in the SAGES video library.

An example of the laparoscopic approach to a TME with intersphincteric dissection and coloanal anastomosis in ultra-low rectal cancer can be found in the SAGES video library.

Outcomes of low anterior resection — In contemporary series, sphincter-sparing procedures and APR have similar local recurrence rates of less than 10 percent [30-32]. Lower recurrence rates are generally associated with the use of meticulous surgical techniques (eg, achieving adequate margins, performing TME) and/or adjuvant chemoradiation therapy. (See "Radical resection of rectal cancer", section on 'Principles of radical resection' and "Neoadjuvant therapy for rectal adenocarcinoma" and "Adjuvant therapy for resected rectal adenocarcinoma in patients not receiving neoadjuvant therapy".)

ABDOMINOPERINEAL RESECTION — Traditionally, abdominoperineal resection (APR) was the gold standard for treating low-lying rectal cancers against which sphincter-sparing procedures and local excision were compared. With the advent of better surgical techniques and equipment (eg, staplers) as well as neoadjuvant therapy, APR has been gradually supplanted by sphincter-sparing procedures. However, patients with disease involvement of the anal sphincter musculature or rectovaginal septum, as well as those with poor preoperative continence or diarrheal disorders, are still best treated with an APR. (See "Overview of the management of rectal adenocarcinoma", section on 'Clinical T4, N2 disease, or other high-risk features' and "Overview of the management of rectal adenocarcinoma", section on 'Management of locally recurrent disease'.)

Criteria for abdominoperineal resection — Patients with an invasive, cT2-4 rectal cancer (table 1) who also meet one of the criteria below should be treated with an APR [33]:

A negative distal margin of 1 cm cannot be achieved with any of the sphincter-sparing procedures. (See 'Low anterior resection' above.)

Locally advanced low-lying rectal cancer.

Locally recurrent low-lying rectal cancer (as a salvage procedure).

Poor presurgical anorectal function.

Techniques of abdominoperineal resection — An APR entails en bloc resection of the sigmoid colon, rectum, and anus, followed by construction of a permanent colostomy. The techniques of APR are discussed elsewhere. (See "Abdominal perineal resection (APR): Open technique".)

Outcomes of abdominoperineal resection — Progressively lower surgical anastomoses are associated with commensurate decline in anorectal function, characterized by increased stool frequency, more incontinence and perianal irritation, decreased stool and flatus discrimination, more incomplete evacuations, and decreased rectal compliance [34]. Poor anorectal function results in poor quality of life (QOL). In one prospective study of QOL after rectal cancer surgery, patients who had an anastomosis within 5 cm of the anal verge had significantly worse QOL compared with those who underwent an APR [35].

According to several studies, long-term QOL after APR was similar to QOL after sphincter-sparing procedures [35-40]. QOL was not adversely affected by adjuvant radiation therapy after an APR [41].

MULTIVISCERAL RESECTION — A multivisceral resection includes the resection of the rectum along with one or more adjacent organs invaded by the rectal cancer. It is required for curative resection of T4 rectal cancers. (See "Overview of the management of rectal adenocarcinoma", section on 'Clinical T4, N2 disease, or other high-risk features' and "Overview of the management of rectal adenocarcinoma", section on 'Management of locally recurrent disease'.)

Criteria for multivisceral resection — Multivisceral resection is a potentially morbid procedure that is only used when a less radical procedure would not suffice in one of two scenarios [2,42,43]:

Locally advanced rectal cancer involving adjacent organs or bony structures (T4) (table 1)

Locally recurrent rectal cancer (as a salvage procedure)

In the modern era, approximately 6 to 10 percent of patients with rectal cancer have locally advanced disease without metastasis at the time of diagnosis and may be eligible for multivisceral resection [44].

Techniques of multivisceral resection — A multivisceral resection involves resection of the rectum with one or more of the adjacent pelvic organs or bony structures. It can be performed as a total or partial (modified) pelvic exenteration depending upon the extent of the disease.

A total pelvic exenteration removes all of the pelvic organs, including the rectum, bladder, and internal reproductive organs (ie, prostate and seminal vesicles in males or uterus, ovaries, and vagina in females) [45,46]. A partial pelvic exenteration can be anterior, posterior, supralevator, or composite, depending upon the organs or structures resected. A multivisceral resection for rectal cancer most often requires a posterior or a supralevator partial pelvic exenteration.

The techniques of multivisceral resection are discussed in detail elsewhere. (See "Exenteration for gynecologic cancer", section on 'Operative technique'.)

Outcomes of multivisceral resection — In specialized centers, pelvic exenterative surgery can provide long-term survival in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, provided that negative resection margins are attained. Nodal status was also a determinant of overall survival.

In an international collaborative study of 1291 pelvic exenterative procedures performed for locally advanced primary rectal cancer, the median overall survival following R0, R1, and R2 resection was 43, 21, and 10 months with a three-year survival rate of 56.4, 29.6, and 8.1 percent, respectively [44].

In another retrospective review of 1741 patients with T4M0 rectal cancer, patients treated with a multivisceral resection had a better overall five-year survival than those treated with a standard colorectal resection (35 versus 28 percent) [47]. Other studies also showed that multivisceral resection can be performed with low mortality (range 0 to 8 percent) but high morbidity (range 26 to 61 percent) and high reoperation rates (20 to 30 percent) [44,45,48-56].

Compared with patients undergoing multivisceral resection for recurrences, patients undergoing multivisceral resection for locally advanced primary rectal cancer have better disease control (89 versus 38 percent) and survival (43 to 66 percent versus 1 to 8 percent) [45,46,50,51].

Multivisceral resection is typically used as a part of multimodality therapy for treating locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer. Adjuvant therapy for treating locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer is discussed separately. (See "Neoadjuvant therapy for rectal adenocarcinoma" and "Adjuvant therapy for resected rectal adenocarcinoma in patients not receiving neoadjuvant therapy".)

TUMOR-RELATED EMERGENCIES AND SURGICAL PALLIATION — Up to 20 percent of patients with colorectal cancer present as emergencies. Despite competing treatment priorities, the management of patients with rectal cancer presenting with tumor-related emergencies should follow oncologic principles whenever possible. Tumor-related emergencies related to rectal cancer typically include bleeding, obstruction, and perforation.

Bleeding — Radiation therapy can effectively palliate 87 to 100 percent of tumor-related rectal bleeding and is considered the first-line approach [57,58]. Alternatively, bleeding can also be managed endoscopically, by interventional radiology, or topically [59]. Emergency resection can typically be avoided in this situation.

Perforation — The main priority of managing perforation is to obtain source control. Once that is achieved, oncologic resection with or without anastomosis can then be performed as much as the patient's clinical condition allows. If the perforation occurs proximal to the tumor, an extended resection encompassing both pathologies may be required.

Obstruction — For those with potentially curable obstructing rectal cancer, decompression via stenting or stoma allows for staging and appropriate multimodality therapy before resection. The timing and method of decompression should be individualized. (See "Large bowel obstruction", section on 'Malignant obstruction'.)

For proximal rectal cancers that are potentially curable, an endoluminal expanding stent can act as a "bridge" to allow decompression and bowel preparation before definitive surgery. Stenting should not be performed for distal rectal cancer, because stents deployed in the low rectum can cause tenesmus and pain [60]. Stenting is also not recommended for patients being treated with antiangiogenic chemotherapeutic agents, because of a higher risk of stent-related perforation [61]. The techniques of endoluminal stenting are discussed elsewhere. (See "Enteral stents for the management of malignant colorectal obstruction".)

Proximal diversion is performed to relieve intestinal obstruction in patients whose rectal cancer is not amenable to endoluminal stenting. A loop ostomy with a distal limb is preferred in those with complete obstruction to permit retrograde distal decompression [62]. The techniques of proximal diversion are discussed elsewhere. (See "Overview of surgical ostomy for fecal diversion".)

Surgical palliation — For patients who present with a recurrent or metastatic rectal cancer that is unresectable, or when patients are not a surgical candidate, the goal of surgery is to relieve symptoms, rather than to cure cancer. Although some studies showed that resecting the primary cancer in the presence of unresectable metastatic disease may prolong survival, such practice is not the standard of care. (See "Locoregional methods for management and palliation in patients who present with stage IV colorectal cancer", section on 'Management of the primary cancer'.)

Despite modern chemotherapy, up to one-third of patients with metastatic rectal cancer experience primary tumor-related complications [63]. Most of such complications require surgical intervention, which usually results in the creation of a stoma. Thus, patients with an in situ primary tumor require follow-up to assess the tumor's response to systemic therapy. If the primary tumor progresses despite systemic therapy, a tumor-directed intervention should be offered electively or preemptively before complications occur. The occurrence of primary tumor-related complications can negatively impact the patient's survival and quality of life.

For patients with stage IV rectal cancer, surgical palliation can be achieved by endoluminal stenting, proximal diversion, external radiation, or one of the nonresectional procedures such as fulguration or endocavitary radiation [64,65]. However, fulguration and endocavitary radiation are rarely performed in modern practice.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC — The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the complexity of cancer care. Important issues include balancing the risk from delaying cancer treatment versus harm from COVID-19, minimizing the number of clinic and hospital visits to reduce exposure whenever possible, mitigating the negative impacts of social distancing on delivery of care, and appropriately and fairly allocating limited healthcare resources. Specific guidance for decision-making for cancer surgery on a disease-by-disease basis is available from the American College of Surgeons, from the Society for Surgical Oncology, and from others. These and other recommendations for cancer care during active phases of the COVID-19 pandemic are discussed separately. (See "COVID-19: Considerations in patients with cancer".)

SOCIETY GUIDELINE LINKS — Links to society and government-sponsored guidelines from selected countries and regions around the world are provided separately. (See "Society guideline links: Colorectal cancer" and "Society guideline links: Colorectal surgery for cancer".)

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Local resection – For most patients who have early-stage rectal cancer (≤cT1) without high-risk features, we suggest local excision rather than radical transabdominal resection (Grade 2C). Local excision may also be offered to those who have more advanced diseases (≥cT2) but who are medically unfit for radical transabdominal surgery after sufficient counselling. Local excision is typically performed with transanal endoscopic surgery or, less frequently, with transanal excision. (See 'Local excision' above.)

Radical resection – Patients with invasive rectal cancer who are not candidates for local excision require radical transabdominal resection. For patients undergoing radical transabdominal resection, we suggest a sphincter-preserving procedure such as low anterior resection (LAR) if a negative distal margin can be achieved (Grade 2C). An abdominoperineal resection (APR) is required if an adequate distal margin cannot be obtained or if the patient has poor presurgical anorectal function. (See 'Low anterior resection' above and 'Abdominoperineal resection' above.)

Multivisceral resection – A multivisceral resection is required for patients with T4 rectal cancer that invades adjacent organs or bony structures or as a salvage procedure for locally recurrent rectal cancer. A total or partial pelvic exenteration is required to achieve a curative resection in such patients. (See 'Multivisceral resection' above.)

Tumor-related emergencies – The management of tumor-related emergencies should follow oncologic principles whenever possible.

Bleeding – Bleeding is typically managed with radiation therapy. (See 'Bleeding' above.)

Perforation – The main priority of managing perforation is to obtain source control. Once that is achieved, oncologic resection with or without anastomosis can then be performed as much as the patient's clinical condition allows. (See 'Perforation' above.)

Obstruction – For those with potentially curable obstructing rectal cancer, decompression via stenting or stoma allows for staging and appropriate multimodality therapy before resection. Stenting is not recommended for distal rectal cancer or for patients receiving antiangiogenic agents. Stenting is preferred for incurable patients with obstruction. (See 'Obstruction' above and 'Surgical palliation' above.)

  1. McCourt M, Armitage J, Monson JR. Rectal cancer. Surgeon 2009; 7:162.
  2. Monson JR, Weiser MR, Buie WD, et al. Practice parameters for the management of rectal cancer (revised). Dis Colon Rectum 2013; 56:535.
  3. Salinas HM, Dursun A, Klos CL, et al. Determining the need for radical surgery in patients with T1 rectal cancer. Arch Surg 2011; 146:540.
  4. Chang AJ, Nahas CS, Araujo SE, et al. Early rectal cancer: local excision or radical surgery? J Surg Educ 2008; 65:67.
  5. Nascimbeni R, Burgart LJ, Nivatvongs S, Larson DR. Risk of lymph node metastasis in T1 carcinoma of the colon and rectum. Dis Colon Rectum 2002; 45:200.
  6. Nivatvongs S. Surgical management of early colorectal cancer. World J Surg 2000; 24:1052.
  7. Endreseth BH, Myrvold HE, Romundstad P, et al. Transanal excision vs. major surgery for T1 rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2005; 48:1380.
  8. Garcia-Aguilar J, Renfro LA, Chow OS, et al. Organ preservation for clinical T2N0 distal rectal cancer using neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and local excision (ACOSOG Z6041): results of an open-label, single-arm, multi-institutional, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16:1537.
  9. Smart CJ, Korsgen S, Hill J, et al. Multicentre study of short-course radiotherapy and transanal endoscopic microsurgery for early rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2016; 103:1069.
  10. Benson AB, Venook AP, Al-Hawary MM, et al. Rectal cancer, Version 3.2019, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Available at: www.nccn.org (Accessed on September 01, 2019).
  11. Cathelineau X, Sanchez-Salas R, Flamand V, et al. The York Mason operation. BJU Int 2010; 106:436.
  12. Onaitis M, Ludwig K, Perez-Tamayo A, et al. The Kraske procedure: a critical analysis of a surgical approach for mid-rectal lesions. J Surg Oncol 2006; 94:194.
  13. Westbrook KC, Lang NP, Broadwater JR, Thompson BW. Posterior surgical approaches to the rectum. Ann Surg 1982; 195:677.
  14. Gimbel MI, Paty PB. A current perspective on local excision of rectal cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer 2004; 4:26.
  15. Massalou D, Chetrus-Mariage D, Baqué P. York-Mason repair of recto-urethral fistula. J Visc Surg 2015; 152:185.
  16. van Oostendorp SE, Smits LJH, Vroom Y, et al. Local recurrence after local excision of early rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of completion TME, adjuvant (chemo)radiation, or no additional treatment. Br J Surg 2020; 107:1719.
  17. Doornebosch PG, Tollenaar RA, De Graaf EJ. Is the increasing role of Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery in curation for T1 rectal cancer justified? A systematic review. Acta Oncol 2009; 48:343.
  18. Kidane B, Chadi SA, Kanters S, et al. Local resection compared with radical resection in the treatment of T1N0M0 rectal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 2015; 58:122.
  19. You YN, Baxter NN, Stewart A, Nelson H. Is the increasing rate of local excision for stage I rectal cancer in the United States justified?: a nationwide cohort study from the National Cancer Database. Ann Surg 2007; 245:726.
  20. Serra-Aracil X, Galvez Saldaña A, Mora-Lopez LL, et al. Completion Surgery in Unfavorable Rectal Cancer after Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery: Does It Achieve Satisfactory Sphincter Preservation, Quality of Total Mesorectal Excision Specimen, and Long-term Oncological Outcomes? Dis Colon Rectum 2021; 64:200.
  21. Halverson AL, Morris AM, Cleary RK, Chang GJ. For Patients with Early Rectal Cancer, Does Local Excision Have an Impact on Recurrence, Survival, and Quality of Life Relative to Radical Resection? Ann Surg Oncol 2019; 26:2497.
  22. Melnitchouk N, Fields AC, Lu P, et al. Local versus Radical Excision of Early Distal Rectal Cancers: A National Cancer Database Analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2020; 27:2169.
  23. Lezoche E, Baldarelli M, Lezoche G, et al. Randomized clinical trial of endoluminal locoregional resection versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for T2 rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. Br J Surg 2012; 99:1211.
  24. Borstlap WA, Coeymans TJ, Tanis PJ, et al. Meta-analysis of oncological outcomes after local excision of pT1-2 rectal cancer requiring adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy or completion surgery. Br J Surg 2016; 103:1105.
  25. Russo S, Anker CJ, Abdel-Wahab M, et al. Executive Summary of the American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria for Local Excision in Rectal Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 105:977.
  26. Shaikh I, Askari A, Ourû S, et al. Oncological outcomes of local excision compared with radical surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2015; 30:19.
  27. Rullier E, Vendrely V, Asselineau J, et al. Organ preservation with chemoradiotherapy plus local excision for rectal cancer: 5-year results of the GRECCAR 2 randomised trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 5:465.
  28. Smith FM, Ahad A, Perez RO, et al. Local Excision Techniques for Rectal Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy: What Are We Doing? Dis Colon Rectum 2017; 60:228.
  29. Hallam S, Messenger DE, Thomas MG. A Systematic Review of Local Excision After Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Cancer: Are ypT0 Tumors the Limit? Dis Colon Rectum 2016; 59:984.
  30. Martin ST, Heneghan HM, Winter DC. Systematic review of outcomes after intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2012; 99:603.
  31. Silberfein EJ, Kattepogu KM, Hu CY, et al. Long-term survival and recurrence outcomes following surgery for distal rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2010; 17:2863.
  32. Mathis KL, Larson DW, Dozois EJ, et al. Outcomes following surgery without radiotherapy for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2012; 99:137.
  33. Murrell ZA, Dixon MR, Vargas H, et al. Contemporary indications for and early outcomes of abdominoperineal resection. Am Surg 2005; 71:837.
  34. Abbas MA. Sphincter preservation for distal rectal cancer: how low is too low? Am J Clin Oncol 2008; 31:195.
  35. Grumann MM, Noack EM, Hoffmann IA, Schlag PM. Comparison of quality of life in patients undergoing abdominoperineal extirpation or anterior resection for rectal cancer. Ann Surg 2001; 233:149.
  36. Bruheim K, Svartberg J, Carlsen E, et al. Radiotherapy for rectal cancer is associated with reduced serum testosterone and increased FSH and LH. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 70:722.
  37. Pachler J, Wille-Jørgensen P. Quality of life after rectal resection for cancer, with or without permanent colostomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; :CD004323.
  38. Allal AS, Bieri S, Pelloni A, et al. Sphincter-sparing surgery after preoperative radiotherapy for low rectal cancers: feasibility, oncologic results and quality of life outcomes. Br J Cancer 2000; 82:1131.
  39. Camilleri-Brennan J, Steele RJ. Objective assessment of morbidity and quality of life after surgery for low rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 2002; 4:61.
  40. Cornish JA, Tilney HS, Heriot AG, et al. A meta-analysis of quality of life for abdominoperineal excision of rectum versus anterior resection for rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2007; 14:2056.
  41. Kasparek MS, Hassan I, Cima RR, et al. Long-term quality of life and sexual and urinary function after abdominoperineal resection for distal rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2012; 55:147.
  42. Nelson H, Petrelli N, Carlin A, et al. Guidelines 2000 for colon and rectal cancer surgery. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001; 93:583.
  43. McGory ML, Shekelle PG, Ko CY. Development of quality indicators for patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98:1623.
  44. PelvEx Collaborative. Surgical and Survival Outcomes Following Pelvic Exenteration for Locally Advanced Primary Rectal Cancer: Results From an International Collaboration. Ann Surg 2019; 269:315.
  45. Law WL, Chu KW, Choi HK. Total pelvic exenteration for locally advanced rectal cancer. J Am Coll Surg 2000; 190:78.
  46. Pawlik TM, Skibber JM, Rodriguez-Bigas MA. Pelvic exenteration for advanced pelvic malignancies. Ann Surg Oncol 2006; 13:612.
  47. Govindarajan A, Coburn NG, Kiss A, et al. Population-based assessment of the surgical management of locally advanced colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98:1474.
  48. Nakafusa Y, Tanaka T, Tanaka M, et al. Comparison of multivisceral resection and standard operation for locally advanced colorectal cancer: analysis of prognostic factors for short-term and long-term outcome. Dis Colon Rectum 2004; 47:2055.
  49. Vermaas M, Ferenschild FT, Verhoef C, et al. Total pelvic exenteration for primary locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2007; 33:452.
  50. Ferenschild FT, Vermaas M, Verhoef C, et al. Total pelvic exenteration for primary and recurrent malignancies. World J Surg 2009; 33:1502.
  51. Lehnert T, Methner M, Pollok A, et al. Multivisceral resection for locally advanced primary colon and rectal cancer: an analysis of prognostic factors in 201 patients. Ann Surg 2002; 235:217.
  52. Sagar PM, Gonsalves S, Heath RM, et al. Composite abdominosacral resection for recurrent rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2009; 96:191.
  53. Palmer G, Martling A, Lagergren P, et al. Quality of life after potentially curative treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2008; 15:3109.
  54. Kakuda JT, Lamont JP, Chu DZ, Paz IB. The role of pelvic exenteration in the management of recurrent rectal cancer. Am J Surg 2003; 186:660.
  55. Akasu T, Yamaguchi T, Fujimoto Y, et al. Abdominal sacral resection for posterior pelvic recurrence of rectal carcinoma: analyses of prognostic factors and recurrence patterns. Ann Surg Oncol 2007; 14:74.
  56. Gannon CJ, Zager JS, Chang GJ, et al. Pelvic exenteration affords safe and durable treatment for locally advanced rectal carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2007; 14:1870.
  57. Chia D, Lu J, Zheng H, et al. Efficacy of palliative radiation therapy for symptomatic rectal cancer. Radiother Oncol 2016; 121:258.
  58. Picardi V, Deodato F, Guido A, et al. Palliative Short-Course Radiation Therapy in Rectal Cancer: A Phase 2 Study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 95:1184.
  59. Heller SJ, Tokar JL, Nguyen MT, et al. Management of bleeding GI tumors. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72:817.
  60. Shimura T, Joh T. Evidence-based Clinical Management of Acute Malignant Colorectal Obstruction. J Clin Gastroenterol 2016; 50:273.
  61. van Halsema EE, van Hooft JE, Small AJ, et al. Perforation in colorectal stenting: a meta-analysis and a search for risk factors. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79:970.
  62. Malakorn S, Stein SL, Lee JH, You YN. Urgent Management of Obstructing Colorectal Cancer: Divert, Stent, or Resect? J Gastrointest Surg 2019; 23:425.
  63. Tan WJ, Patil S, Guillem JG, et al. Primary Tumor-Related Complications and Salvage Outcomes in Patients with Metastatic Rectal Cancer and an Untreated Primary Tumor. Dis Colon Rectum 2021; 64:45.
  64. Coatmeur O, Truc G, Barillot I, et al. Treatment of T1-T2 rectal tumors by contact therapy and interstitial brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 2004; 70:177.
  65. Christoforidis D, McNally MP, Jarosek SL, et al. Endocavitary contact radiation therapy for ultrasonographically staged T1 N0 and T2 N0 rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2009; 96:430.
Topic 15311 Version 32.0

References

آیا می خواهید مدیلیب را به صفحه اصلی خود اضافه کنید؟