» Articles » PMID: 28924962

The Impact of Tumour Distance From the Anal Verge on Clinical Management and Outcomes in Patients Having a Curative Resection for Rectal Cancer

Overview
Specialty Gastroenterology
Date 2017 Sep 20
PMID 28924962
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Aim: The clinico-oncological significance of the distance of rectal cancer from the anal verge is unclear and not well reported. The aim of this study is to assess the influence of the rectal cancer distance from the anal verge on clinical management and long-term outcomes after curative resection in a specialised colorectal cancer unit.

Methods: Prospectively collected data on patients who underwent primary rectal cancer treatment at our unit between January 2005 and December 2010 were analysed. Low rectal cancer (LRC) was defined as tumour < 5 cm from the anal verge on MRI scan. Recurrent cancer, palliative resections, perforated tumours and those requiring total pelvic exenteration were excluded.

Results: Three hundred fifty-nine patients underwent surgery for rectal cancer (226 male/133 female). Of these, 149 (41.5%) patients had low rectal cancer (LRC). Compared to patients with mid/upper rectal cancer (M/URC), patients with low rectal cancers were significantly more likely to receive neo-adjuvant therapy (75.2 vs 38%; p < 0.001), to be associated with lower rate of restorative surgery (15.4 vs 79%; p < 0.001) and to have higher rates of pathological positive circumferential resection margin involvement (14.1 vs 7.1%; p = 0.047). There were however no significant difference in the rates of recurrent disease or survival among the two groups.

Conclusion: Distance of rectal cancer from the anal verge does influence the use of neo-adjuvant treatment and ultimate R0 resection rate. It does not influence loco-regional or systemic recurrence rates.

Citing Articles

Is tumour location a dominant risk factor of recurrence in early rectal cancer?.

Rosen R, Thorlacius H, Ronnow C Surg Endosc. 2024; 39(2):1056-1066.

PMID: 39681677 PMC: 11794355. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-11413-6.


Machine Learning-Based Algorithms for Enhanced Prediction of Local Recurrence and Metastasis in Low Rectal Adenocarcinoma Using Imaging, Surgical, and Pathological Data.

Volovat C, Scripcariu D, Boboc D, Volovat S, Vasilache I, Ursulescu-Lupascu C Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(6).

PMID: 38535046 PMC: 10969012. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14060625.


Predicting the Feasibility of Curative Resection in Low Rectal Cancer: Insights from a Prospective Observational Study on Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Accuracy.

Volovat C, Scripcariu D, Boboc D, Volovat S, Vasilache I, Lupascu-Ursulescu C Medicina (Kaunas). 2024; 60(2).

PMID: 38399617 PMC: 10890266. DOI: 10.3390/medicina60020330.


A nomogram for predicting good response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: a retrospective, double-center, cohort study.

Wang G, Zheng Z, Chen J, Ye J, Tang Z, Fang Y Int J Colorectal Dis. 2022; 37(10):2157-2166.

PMID: 36048198 PMC: 9560928. DOI: 10.1007/s00384-022-04247-y.


An MRI-based pelvimetry nomogram for predicting surgical difficulty of transabdominal resection in patients with middle and low rectal cancer.

Yuan Y, Tong D, Liu M, Lu H, Shen F, Shi X Front Oncol. 2022; 12:882300.

PMID: 35957878 PMC: 9357897. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.882300.


References
1.
Bhangu A, Rasheed S, Brown G, Tait D, Cunningham D, Tekkis P . Does rectal cancer height influence the oncological outcome?. Colorectal Dis. 2014; 16(10):801-8. DOI: 10.1111/codi.12703. View

2.
Chambers W, Khan A, Waters R, Lindsey I, George B, Mortensen N . Examination of outcome following abdominoperineal resection for adenocarcinoma in Oxford. Colorectal Dis. 2009; 12(12):1192-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01939.x. View

3.
Piso P, Dahlke M, Mirena P, Schmidt U, Aselmann H, Schlitt H . Total mesorectal excision for middle and lower rectal cancer: a single institution experience with 337 consecutive patients. J Surg Oncol. 2004; 86(3):115-21. DOI: 10.1002/jso.20062. View

4.
Merlino J . Defining the volume-quality debate: is it the surgeon, the center, or the training?. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2009; 20(3):231-6. PMC: 2789509. DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-984867. View

5.
Marr R, Birbeck K, Garvican J, Macklin C, Tiffin N, Parsons W . The modern abdominoperineal excision: the next challenge after total mesorectal excision. Ann Surg. 2005; 242(1):74-82. PMC: 1357707. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000167926.60908.15. View