Solomon, Michael J

Abstract Background The multicentre ALaCaRT and ACOSOG Z6051 randomized trials were unable to demonstrate non-inferiority of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer with respect to a composite pathology metric indicating successful resection. Neither trial was individually powered to detect differences in long-term recurrence or survival. This planned meta-analysis determined long-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopic versus open proctectomy for rectal adenocarcinoma. Methods This prospective meta-analysis included individual patient data from patients with cT1–3 N0–2 M0 rectal adenocarcinoma enrolled in the ALaCaRT and ACOSOG Z6051 trials. Pathologically successful resection was defined as complete or near-complete total mesorectal excision, a clear circumferential resection margin (CRM; > 1 mm), and a clear distal resection margin (> 1 mm). The non-inferiority margin for disease-free survival (DFS) was an absolute difference of 5% at least 3 years after surgery. Results The combined data set included 935 patients (65.6% men, mean age 60.7 years, mean body mass index 26.7 kg/m2) randomized to open (457 patients) or laparoscopic (478 patients) proctectomy. Pathologically successful resection was lower in the laparoscopic than open group (85.1% versus 89.9%, respectively; pooled estimate 4.6% difference; 95% confidence interval (c.i.) −8.6% to −0.5%). The median follow-up was 60.2 (interquartile range 49.9–61.1) months. Three-year DFS was 75.2% (95% c.i. 71.1% to 79.2%) and 76.5% (95% c.i. 72.5% to 80.6%) for the laparoscopic and open groups, respectively (pooled estimate difference −1.5%; 95% c.i. −7.2% to 4.2%). Non-inferiority of laparoscopic surgery was not demonstrated because the lower one-sided 95% c.i. (−6.3% to 100%) crossed −5%. Three-year locoregional recurrence was higher in laparoscopic than open group (5.4% (95% c.i. 3.3% to 7.5%) versus 2.0% (95% c.i. 0.7% to 3.4%), respectively; pooled estimate 3.1% difference (95% c.i. 0.6% to 5.6%)). A clear CRM was the most significant and only pathological predictor of both DFS (P < 0.0001) and overall survival (P < 0.0001). Conclusion Laparoscopic proctectomy led to a lower rate of pathologically successful resection and a higher rate of locoregional recurrence at 3 years. The possibility of subsequent poorer DFS or overall survival rate requires further evaluation, because this analysis was not specifically powered for these endpoints.

Abstract Background Presacral tumours are rare and heterogeneous lesions arising within a complex anatomical space, resulting in variability in diagnosis and management. Increasing incidental detection and evolving surgical and oncological strategies have highlighted the need for contemporary guidance. The aim of this study was to establish an international expert consensus on the optimal diagnosis and management of presacral tumours. Methods An international panel of colorectal surgeons from high-volume units was convened. Evidence- and practice-based statements were developed after domain-based literature reviews and refined through five online and two in-person meetings. Consensus was achieved using a modified Delphi process with anonymous voting. Results In total, 16 colorectal surgeons participated in the study. Ten domains were identified resulting in the development of 22 statements based on expert opinion and retrospective studies. After two rounds, unanimous (100%) agreement was achieved for all statements. High-resolution MRI with structured synoptic reporting is endorsed as central to risk stratification. Selective image-guided transperineal or parasacral biopsy is recommended for high-risk lesions where histology would alter management. Complete surgical resection is defined as the operative goal, with approach tailored to tumour biology and anatomy; minimally invasive surgery is considered appropriate in selected cases. Non-operative surveillance is supported for carefully selected asymptomatic, low-risk cystic lesions. Postoperative surveillance is recommended in a risk-adapted manner according to histopathology and margin status. Conclusion This international consensus provides a pragmatic, risk-stratified framework for the multidisciplinary diagnosis and management of presacral tumours. These recommendations aim to reduce practice variation, support decision-making in specialized centres, and inform future prospective collaborative research.

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.