Desai, Anant

AbstractBackgroundPrimary mesenteric soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are rare and limited evidence is available to inform management. Surgical resection is challenging due to the proximity of vital structures and a need to preserve enteric function.ObjectivesTo determine the overall survival (OS) and recurrence‐free survival (RFS) for patients undergoing primary resection for mesenteric STS.MethodsThe Trans‐Atlantic Australasian Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Working Group (TARPSWG) is an intercontinental collaborative comprising specialist sarcoma centers. Data were collected retrospectively for all patients with mesenteric STS undergoing primary resection between 2000 and 2019.ResultsFifty‐six cases from 15 institutions were included. The spectrum of pathology was similar to the retroperitoneum, although of a higher grade. R0/R1 resection was achieved in 87%. Median OS was 56 months. OS was significantly shorter in higher‐grade tumors (p = .018) and extensive resection (p < .001). No significant association between OS and resection margin or tumor size was detected. Rates of local recurrence (LR) and distant metastases (DM) at 5 years were 60% and 41%, respectively. Liver metastases were common (60%), reflecting portal drainage of the mesentery.ConclusionPrimary mesenteric sarcoma is rare, with a modest survival rate. LR and DM are frequent events. Liver metastases are common, highlighting the need for surveillance imaging.

Consensus abstract Background The management of primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes (PRC-bTME) and recurrent rectal cancer (RRC) is challenging. There is global variation in standards and no guidelines exist. To achieve cure most patients require extended, multivisceral, exenterative surgery, beyond conventional total mesorectal excision planes. The aim of the Beyond TME Group was to achieve consensus on the definitions and principles of management, and to identify areas of research priority. Methods Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus. The Group consisted of invited experts from surgery, radiology, oncology and pathology. The process included two international dedicated discussion conferences, formal feedback, three rounds of editing and two rounds of anonymized web-based voting. Consensus was achieved with more than 80 per cent agreement; less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. During conferences held in September 2011 and March 2012, open discussion took place on areas in which there is a low level of consensus. Results The final consensus document included 51 voted statements, making recommendations on ten key areas of PRC-bTME and RRC. Consensus agreement was achieved on the recommendations of 49 statements, with 34 achieving consensus in over 95 per cent. The lowest level of consensus obtained was 76 per cent. There was clear identification of the need for referral to a specialist multidisciplinary team for diagnosis, assessment and further management. Conclusion The consensus process has provided guidance for the management of patients with PRC-bTME or RRC, taking into account global variations in surgical techniques and technology. It has further identified areas of research priority.

Consensus abstract Background The management of primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes (PRC-bTME) and recurrent rectal cancer (RRC) is challenging. There is global variation in standards and no guidelines exist. To achieve cure most patients require extended, multivisceral, exenterative surgery, beyond conventional total mesorectal excision planes. The aim of the Beyond TME Group was to achieve consensus on the definitions and principles of management, and to identify areas of research priority. Methods Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus. The Group consisted of invited experts from surgery, radiology, oncology and pathology. The process included two international dedicated discussion conferences, formal feedback, three rounds of editing and two rounds of anonymized web-based voting. Consensus was achieved with more than 80 per cent agreement; less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. During conferences held in September 2011 and March 2012, open discussion took place on areas in which there is a low level of consensus. Results The final consensus document included 51 voted statements, making recommendations on ten key areas of PRC-bTME and RRC. Consensus agreement was achieved on the recommendations of 49 statements, with 34 achieving consensus in over 95 per cent. The lowest level of consensus obtained was 76 per cent. There was clear identification of the need for referral to a specialist multidisciplinary team for diagnosis, assessment and further management. Conclusion The consensus process has provided guidance for the management of patients with PRC-bTME or RRC, taking into account global variations in surgical techniques and technology. It has further identified areas of research priority.