» Articles » PMID: 33066759

The Quality of Lymph Node Harvests in Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excisions

Overview
Journal BMC Surg
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty General Surgery
Date 2020 Oct 17
PMID 33066759
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Lymph node (LN) harvest in colorectal cancer resections is a well-recognised prognostic factor for disease staging and determining survival, particularly for node-negative (N0) diseases. Extralevator abdominoperineal excisions (ELAPE) aim to prevent "waisting" that occurs during conventional abdominoperineal resections (APR) for low rectal cancers, and reducing circumferential resection margin (CRM) infiltration rate. Our study investigates whether ELAPE may also improve the quality of LN harvests, addressing gaps in the literature.

Methods: This retrospective observational study reviewed 2 sets of 30 consecutive APRs before and after the adoption of ELAPE in our unit. The primary outcomes are the total LN counts and rates of meeting the standard of 12-minimum, particularly for those with node-negative disease. The secondary outcomes are the CRM involvement rates. Baseline characteristics including age, sex, laparoscopic or open surgery and the use of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were accounted for in our analyses.

Results: Median LN counts were slightly higher in the ELAPE group (16.5 vs. 15). Specimens failing the minimum 12-LN requirements were almost significantly fewer in the ELAPE group (OR 0.456, P = 0.085). Among node-negative rectal cancers, significantly fewer resections failed the 12-LN standard in the ELAPE group than APR group (OR 0.211, P = 0.044). ELAPE led to a near-significant decrease in CRM involvement (OR 0.365, P = 0.088). These improvements were persistently observed after taking into account baselines and potential confounders in regression analyses.

Conclusion: ELAPE provides higher quality of LN harvests that meet the 12-minimal requirements than conventional APR, particularly in node-negative rectal cancers. The superiority is independent of potential confounding factors, and may implicate better clinical outcomes.

Citing Articles

Predictors and survival outcomes of having less than 12 harvested lymph nodes in proctectomy for rectal cancer.

Emile S, Horesh N, Garoufalia Z, Gefen R, Zhou P, Wexner S Int J Colorectal Dis. 2023; 38(1):225.

PMID: 37688758 DOI: 10.1007/s00384-023-04518-2.


Laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision in distal rectal cancer patients: a retrospective comparative study.

Wang Z, Liang R, Yalikun D, Yang J, Li W, Kou Z BMC Surg. 2022; 22(1):418.

PMID: 36482294 PMC: 9733400. DOI: 10.1186/s12893-022-01865-9.

References
1.
Hussain A, Mahmood F, Torrance A, Clarke H, Howitt C, Dawson R . Oncological outcomes of abdominoperineal resection for the treatment of low rectal cancer: A retrospective review of a single UK tertiary centre experience. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2018; 34:28-33. PMC: 6125802. DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2018.06.007. View

2.
Dolan R, McSorley S, Horgan P, McMillan D . Determinants of lymph node count and positivity in patients undergoing surgery for colon cancer. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018; 97(13):e0185. PMC: 5895435. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000010185. View

3.
Baxter N, Virnig D, Rothenberger D, Morris A, Jessurun J, Virnig B . Lymph node evaluation in colorectal cancer patients: a population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005; 97(3):219-25. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dji020. View

4.
Fielding L, Arsenault P, Chapuis P, Dent O, Gathright B, Hardcastle J . Clinicopathological staging for colorectal cancer: an International Documentation System (IDS) and an International Comprehensive Anatomical Terminology (ICAT). J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1991; 6(4):325-44. DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.1991.tb00867.x. View

5.
Caplin S, Cerottini J, Bosman F, Constanda M, Givel J . For patients with Dukes' B (TNM Stage II) colorectal carcinoma, examination of six or fewer lymph nodes is related to poor prognosis. Cancer. 1998; 83(4):666-72. View