4.6 Article

Outcome of abdominosacral resection for locally advanced primary and recurrent rectal cancer

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 99, Issue 10, Pages 1453-1461

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.8881

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Imperial College Cancer Research UK centre
  2. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0507-10161] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The aim was to assess the indications for and outcomes of abdominosacral resection for patients with locally advanced primary and recurrent rectal cancer. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing abdominosacral resection between January 2006 and December 2011 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. The main endpoints were 3-year local recurrence-free (LRFS) and disease-free (DFS) survival. Results: Thirty patients underwent abdominosacral resection, 22 for recurrent rectal cancer and eight for locally advanced primary cancer. Sacrectomy was performed at S1/2 in five, S3 in 11 and S4/5 in 14 patients. R0 resection was achieved in 23 patients; all seven positive margins (R1) were in patients with recurrent disease. There were no deaths in hospital or within 30 days. S1/2 sacrectomy was associated with the highest rate of major complications (60 per cent versus 27 and 29 per cent for S3 and S4/5 respectively) and long-term complications (60, 36 and 14 per cent). Overall 3-year LRFS was 66 per cent and 3-year DFS was 55 per cent. Both were significantly better in patients with negative compared with positive margins (LRFS: 87 versus 0 per cent, P < 0.001; DFS: 71 versus 0 per cent, P = 0.033). Conclusion: Abdominosacral resection was associated with long-term survival in carefully selected patients with advanced rectal cancer. Postoperative complications were common and often multiple. Sacrectomy for locally advanced primary rectal cancer was associated with a low margin-positive rate and should be considered as an acceptable treatment. Margin-positive resection was associated with poor survival outcomes and should be avoided. Copyright (c) 2012 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available