4.4 Review

A systematic review of cancer related patient outcomes after anterior resection and abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer in the total mesorectal excision era

Journal

SURGICAL ONCOLOGY-OXFORD
Volume 20, Issue 4, Pages E149-E155

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2011.05.001

Keywords

Rectal cancer; Circumferential resection margin; Perforation; Recurrence; Survival; Anterior resection abdominoperineal excision; Review

Funding

  1. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0507-10161] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. Pelican Cancer Foundation [601] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: It is a widely held view that anterior resection (AR) for rectal cancer is an oncologically superior operation to abdominoperineal excision (APE). However, some centres have demonstrated better outcomes with APE. We conducted a systematic review of high-quality studies within the total mesorectal excision (TME) era comparing outcomes of AR and APE. Methods: A literature search was performed to identify studies within the TME era comparing AR and APE with regard to the following: circumferential resection margin (CRM) status, tumour perforation rates, specimen quality, local recurrence, overall survival (OS; 3 or 5 year), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Additional data regarding patient demographics and tumour characteristics was collected. Results: Twenty four studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria with Newcastle-Ottawa scores of six or greater. Where a significant difference was found, all studies reported lower and more advanced tumours for APE and 4/5 studies observed more frequent use of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies in APE patients. Tumour perforation rates and CRM involvement where reported, were significantly greater for APE. 8 out of 10 studies showing significant differences in local recurrence reported higher rates for APE but no differences were observed with distant recurrence. Where differences were noted, AR was reported to have increased DFS, CSS and OS compared to APE. Conclusions: Patients treated with AR have lower rates of tumour perforation and CRM involvement and tend to have better outcomes with regard to disease recurrence and survival. However, tumours treated by APE are lower and more locally advanced. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available