4.7 Article

Long-Term Survival and Recurrence Outcomes Following Surgery for Distal Rectal Cancer

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 17, 期 11, 页码 2863-2869

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-010-1119-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [CA16672, K07-CA133187]
  2. American Society of Clinical Oncology Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Treatment of distal rectal cancer remains clinically challenging and includes proctectomy and coloanal anastomosis (CAA) or abdominoperineal resection (APR). The purpose of this study is to evaluate operative and pathologic factors associated with long-term survival and local recurrence outcomes in patients treated for distal rectal cancer. Methods. A retrospective consecutive cohort study of 304 patients treated for distal rectal cancer with radical resection from 1993 to 2003 was performed. Patients were grouped by procedure (CAA or APR). Demographic, pathologic, recurrence, and survival data were analyzed utilizing chi-square analysis for comparison of proportions. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test for univariate and Cox regression for multivariate comparison. Results. The median tumor distance from the anal verge was 2 cm [interquartile range (IQR) 0.5-4 cm]. Margins were negative in all but four patients (one distal, 0.3%; three radial, 1%). The 5-year overall survival rate was 82% (88.6% stage pI, 80.5% stage pII, 67.9% stage pIII). Older age, advanced pathologic stage, presence of lymphovascular or perineural invasion, earlier treatment period, and APR surgery type were associated with worse survival on multivariate analysis. The 5-year local recurrence rate was 5.3% after CAA and 7.9% after APR (p = 0.33). Conclusions. Low rates of local recurrence and good overall survival can be achieved after treatment of distal rectal cancer with stage-appropriate chemoradiation and proctectomy with CAA or APR. Sphincter preservation can be achieved even with distal margins less than 2 cm.

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

4.7
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