The quality of lymph node harvests in extralevator abdominoperineal excisions.
Abdominoperineal excisions
Lymph nodes
Rectal cancers
Journal
BMC surgery
ISSN: 1471-2482
Titre abrégé: BMC Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968567
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Oct 2020
16 Oct 2020
Historique:
received:
11
05
2020
accepted:
07
10
2020
entrez:
17
10
2020
pubmed:
18
10
2020
medline:
29
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
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
CONCLUSIONS
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33066759
doi: 10.1186/s12893-020-00898-2
pii: 10.1186/s12893-020-00898-2
pmc: PMC7565360
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
241Références
Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2018 Jun 26;34:28-33
pubmed: 30191062
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Mar;97(13):e0185
pubmed: 29595652
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Feb 2;97(3):219-25
pubmed: 15687365
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1991 Jul-Aug;6(4):325-44
pubmed: 1912440
Cancer. 1998 Aug 15;83(4):666-72
pubmed: 9708929
Gastrointest Cancer Res. 2009 Mar;3(2 Suppl):S33-5
pubmed: 19461921
Colorectal Dis. 2017 Feb;19(2):148-157
pubmed: 27369739
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Mar 21;99(6):433-41
pubmed: 17374833
ANZ J Surg. 2011 Apr;81(4):266-71
pubmed: 21418471
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Dec;96(52):e9150
pubmed: 29384902
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Dec 20;23(36):9257-64
pubmed: 16361623
Br J Surg. 2014 Jun;101(7):874-82
pubmed: 24817654
World J Gastrointest Surg. 2016 Mar 27;8(3):179-92
pubmed: 27022445
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Feb 1;25(4):463; author reply 463-4
pubmed: 17264350
Colorectal Dis. 2015 Jun;17(6):474-81
pubmed: 25704132
J Mol Diagn. 2007 Nov;9(5):563-71
pubmed: 17916603
Br J Surg. 2009 Nov;96(11):1348-57
pubmed: 19847867
Colorectal Dis. 2008 Feb;10(2):157-64
pubmed: 17477849
Ann Surg. 2015 May;261(5):933-8
pubmed: 25211268
Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2017 Mar 25;20(3):326-332
pubmed: 28338169
Ann Surg Oncol. 2003 Jan-Feb;10(1):65-71
pubmed: 12513963
Ann Surg Oncol. 2015 Sep;22(9):2997-3006
pubmed: 25605518
J Gastrointest Oncol. 2016 Dec;7(6):946-957
pubmed: 28078118
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2019 Jul;143(7):869-882
pubmed: 30672337
Am J Surg Pathol. 2008 Jan;32(1):45-50
pubmed: 18162769
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Jan 1;32(1):34-43
pubmed: 24276776
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009 May;133(5):781-6
pubmed: 19415953
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015 Apr;41(4):472-7
pubmed: 25659773
J Gastrointest Oncol. 2012 Dec;3(4):342-52
pubmed: 23205311
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Aug 1;21(15):2912-9
pubmed: 12885809
Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2014 Jan;52(1):11-5
pubmed: 24697933
J Clin Oncol. 2001 Jan 1;19(1):157-63
pubmed: 11134208
Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2007 Aug;20(3):213-20
pubmed: 20011202
Ann Surg Oncol. 2003 Apr;10(3):213-8
pubmed: 12679304
Am J Surg. 2012 Sep;204(3):274-82
pubmed: 22920402
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2014 Aug;29(8):981-7
pubmed: 24950793
Am J Clin Pathol. 2004 May;121(5):663-70
pubmed: 15151206
ANZ J Surg. 2011 Dec;81(12):883-8
pubmed: 22507414
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jul 1;27(19):3109-16
pubmed: 19451431
World J Gastrointest Surg. 2012 Jan 27;4(1):9-19
pubmed: 22347537
JAMA. 2007 Nov 14;298(18):2194-5
pubmed: 18000205
Dis Colon Rectum. 2011 Jul;54(7):793-802
pubmed: 21654245
Br J Surg. 2007 Feb;94(2):232-8
pubmed: 17143848
Dis Colon Rectum. 2010 Jan;53(1):65-70
pubmed: 20010353
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Jul 20;26(21):3517-22
pubmed: 18541901
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2018 Feb;100(2):111-115
pubmed: 29022795
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010 Apr;36(4):345-9
pubmed: 20071133
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001 Apr 18;93(8):583-96
pubmed: 11309435
Gut. 2007 Oct;56(10):1419-25
pubmed: 17494107