4.5 Article

Sphincter-saving surgery for ultra-low rectal carcinoma initially indicated for abdominoperineal resection: Is it safe on a long-term follow-up?

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 123, 期 1, 页码 299-310

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jso.26249

关键词

ultra low rectal carcinoma; sphincter saving surgery; neoadjuvant radiotherapy; intersphincteric resection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study demonstrates the feasibility of changing an initial APR indication to an SSR procedure for ULRC patients, and long-term oncologic follow-up validates this approach.
Background Rate of abdominoperineal resection (APR) varies from countries and surgeons. Surgical impact of preoperative treatment for ultra-low rectal carcinoma (ULRC) initially indicated for APR is debated. We report the 10-year oncological results from a prospective controlled trial (GRECCAR 1) which evaluate the sphincter saving surgery (SSR). Methods ULRC indicated for APR were included (n = 207). Randomization was between high-dose radiation (HDR, 45 + 18 Gy) and radiochemotherapy (RCT, 45 Gy + 5FU infusion). Surgical decision was based on tumour volume regression at surgery. SSR technique was standardized as mucosectomy (M) or partial (PISR)/complete (CISR) intersphincteric resection. Results Overall SSR rate was 85% (72% ISR), postoperative morbidity 27%, with no mortality. There were no significant differences between the HDR and RCT groups: 10-year overall survival (OS10) 70.1% versus 69.4%, respectively, 10.2% local recurrence (9.2%/14.5%) and 27.6% metastases (32.4%/27.7%). OS and disease-free survival were significantly longer for SSR (72.2% and 60.1%, respectively) versus APR (54.7% and 38.3%). No difference in OS10 between surgical approaches (M 78.9%, PISR 75.5%, CISR 65.5%) or tumour location (low 64.8%, ultralow 76.7%). Conclusion GRECCAR 1 demonstrates the feasibility of safely changing an initial APR indication into an SSR procedure according to the preoperative treatment tumour response. Long-term oncologic follow-up validates this attitude.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据