» Articles » PMID: 39796738

A Prospective Observational Cohort Study Comparing High-Complexity Against Conventional Pelvic Exenteration Surgery

Overview
Journal Cancers (Basel)
Publisher MDPI
Date 2025 Jan 11
PMID 39796738
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Conventional pelvic exenteration (PE) comprises the removal of all or most central pelvic organs and is established in clinical practise. Previously, tumours involving bone or lateral sidewall structures were deemed inoperable due to associated morbidity, mortality, and poor oncological outcomes. Recently however high-complexity PE is increasingly described and is defined as encompassing conventional PE with the additional resection of bone or pelvic sidewall structures. This observational cohort study aimed to assess surgical outcomes, health-related quality of life (HrQoL), decision regret, and costs of high-complexity PE for more advanced tumours not treatable with conventional PE. High-complexity PE data were retrieved from a prospectively maintained quaternary database. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were perioperative mortality, disease control, major morbidity, HrQoL, and health resource use. For cost-utility analysis, a no-PE group was extrapolated from the literature. In total, 319 cases were included, with 64 conventional and 255 high-complexity PE, and the overall survival was equivalent, with medians of 10.5 and 9.8 years ( = 0.52), respectively. Local control ( = 0.30); 90-day mortality (0.0% vs. 1.2%, = 1.00); R0-resection rate (87% vs. 83%, = 0.08); 12-month HrQoL ( = 0.51); and decision regret ( = 0.90) were comparable. High-complexity PE significantly increased overall major morbidity (16% vs. 31%, = 0.02); and perioperative costs (GBP 37,271 vs. GBP 45,733, < 0.001). When modelled against no surgery, both groups appeared cost-effective with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of GBP 2446 and GBP 5061. High-complexity PE is safe and feasible, offering comparable survival outcomes and HrQoL to conventional PE, but with greater morbidity and resource use. Despite this, it appears cost-effective when compared to no surgery and palliation.

References
1.
Martinez K, Li Y, Resnicow K, Graff J, Hamilton A, Hawley S . Decision Regret following Treatment for Localized Breast Cancer: Is Regret Stable Over Time?. Med Decis Making. 2014; 35(4):446-57. PMC: 4424135. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14564432. View

2.
Johnson Y, West M, Gould L, Drami I, Behrenbruch C, Burns E . Empty pelvis syndrome: a systematic review of reconstruction techniques and their associated complications. Colorectal Dis. 2021; 24(1):16-26. DOI: 10.1111/codi.15956. View

3.
Young J, Badgery-Parker T, Masya L, King M, Koh C, Lynch A . Quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes following exenteration for pelvic malignancy. Br J Surg. 2014; 101(3):277-87. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.9392. View

4.
Ito Y, Ohtsu A, Ishikura S, Boku N, Nihei K, Ogino T . Efficacy of chemoradiotherapy on pain relief in patients with intrapelvic recurrence of rectal cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2003; 33(4):180-5. DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyg036. View

5.
Miller A, Cantor S, Peoples G, Pearlstone D, Skibber J . Quality of life and cost effectiveness analysis of therapy for locally recurrent rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2001; 43(12):1695-1701; discussion 1701-3. DOI: 10.1007/BF02236852. View