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.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration is the treatment of choice for selected patients with locally advanced primary and recurrent rectal cancer. Involvement of major pelvic neurovascular structures and bone was historically considered a contraindication due to unacceptably high rates of morbidity and low R0 resection rates. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of these “high-complexity” exenterative resections to those of “conventional” pelvic exenteration. DESIGN: International multicenter retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: Sixteen specialized exenteration centers. PATIENTS: Those who underwent total pelvic exenteration for locally advanced primary and recurrent rectal cancer between 2018 and 2023 at participating centers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Perioperative resource utilization, morbidity, mortality, and R0 resection rates were reported. RESULTS: Seven hundred sixty-three patients underwent total pelvic exenteration, of whom 478 (63%) and 285 (37%) required conventional and high-complexity procedures, respectively. High-complexity pelvic exenteration was associated with longer operating time (600 vs 480 minutes, p < 0.001 for locally advanced primary rectal cancer, 623 vs 480 minutes, p < 0.001 for locally recurrent rectal cancer), intensive care stay (2 vs 1 day, p < 0.001 and 3 vs 1 day, p < 0.001), hospital stay (19 vs 15 days, p = 0.008 and 23 vs 15 days, p < 0.001), and higher blood loss (2000 vs 1236 mL, p < 0.001 and 3000 vs 1600 mL, p < 0.001). Morbidity and mortality outcomes and R0 resection rates were similar between the groups. LIMITATIONS: Generalizability of findings outside of expert units. CONCLUSIONS: High-complexity pelvic exenteration for the treatment of rectal cancer is associated with similar morbidity, mortality, and R0 resection rates, but it has a significantly higher operative time, blood loss, and hospital resource utilization compared to conventional pelvic exenteration. In high-volume, specialized centers, these techniques are considered the standard of care for appropriately selected patients with tumors that involve major pelvic bone or neurovascular structures. See Video Abstract . EXENTERACIÓN PÉLVICA TOTAL CONVENCIONAL FRENTE A EXENTERACIÓN PÉLVICA TOTAL DE ALTA COMPLEJIDAD PARA EL CÁNCER RECTAL LOCALMENTE AVANZADO Y LOCALMENTE RECURRENTE: UN ESTUDIO MULTICÉNTRICO INTERNACIONAL ANTECEDENTES: La exenteración pélvica es el tratamiento de elección para determinados pacientes con cáncer rectal primario y recurrente localmente avanzado. La afectación de las principales estructuras neurovasculares y óseas pélvicas se consideraba históricamente una contraindicación debido a las tasas inaceptablemente altas de morbilidad y a las bajas tasas de resección R0. OBJETIVO: Comparar los resultados de estas resecciones exenteración «de alta complejidad» con los de la exenteración pélvica «convencional». DISEÑO: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo multicéntrico internacional. ENTORNOS: Dieciséis centros especializados en exenteración. PACIENTES: Aquellos que se sometieron a una exenteración pélvica total por cáncer rectal primario y recurrente localmente avanzado entre 2018 y 2023 en los centros participantes. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADOS: Se informaron la utilización de recursos perioperatorios, la morbilidad, la mortalidad y las tasas de resección R0. RESULTADOS: 763 pacientes se sometieron a una exenteración pélvica total, de los cuales 478 (63 %) y 285 pacientes (37 %) requirieron procedimientos convencionales y de alta complejidad, respectivamente. La exenteración pélvica de alta complejidad se asoció con un tiempo quirúrgico más prolongado (600 frente a 480 minutos, p < 0,001 para el cáncer rectal primario localmente avanzado, 623 frente a 480 minutos, p < 0,001 para el cáncer rectal localmente recurrente), estancia en cuidados intensivos (2 frente a 1 día, p < 0,001 y 3 frente a 1 día, p < 0,001), estancia hospitalaria (19 frente a 15 días, p = 0,008 y 23 frente a 15 días, p < 0,001) y mayor pérdida de sangre (2000 frente a 1236 ml, p < 0,001 y 3000 frente a 1600 ml, p < 0,001). Los resultados de morbilidad y mortalidad, así como las tasas de resección R0, fueron similares entre los grupos. LIMITACIONES: Generalización de los resultados fuera de las unidades especializadas CONCLUSIONES: La exenteración pélvica de alta complejidad para el tratamiento del cáncer de recto se asocia con tasas similares de morbilidad, mortalidad y resección R0, pero con un tiempo quirúrgico, una pérdida de sangre y una utilización de recursos hospitalarios significativamente mayores en comparación con la exenteración pélvica convencional. En centros especializados con un gran volumen de casos, estas técnicas se consideran el tratamiento estándar para pacientes adecuadamente seleccionados con tumores que afectan a los huesos pélvicos principales o a las estructuras neurovasculares. ( AI-generated translation )

Objective: To establish globally applicable benchmark outcomes for pelvic exenteration (PE) in patients with locally advanced primary rectal cancer (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC), using outcomes achieved at highly specialised centres. Background: PE is established as the standard of care for selected patients with LARC and LRRC. There are currently no available benchmarks against which surgical performance in PE can be compared for audit and quality improvement. Methods: This international multicentre retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing PE for LARC or LRRC at 16 highly experienced centres between 2018 and 2023. Ten outcome benchmarks were established in a lower-risk subgroup. Benchmarks were defined by the 75th percentile of the results achieved at the individual centres. Results: Seven hundred sixty-three patients underwent PE, of which 464 patients (61%) had LARCs and 299 (39%) had LRRCs. Five hundred forty-four patients (71%) who met predefined lower-risk criteria formed the benchmark cohort. For patients with LARC, the calculated benchmark threshold for major complication rate was ≤44%; Comprehensive Complication Index: ≤30.2; 30-day mortality rate: 0%; 90-day mortality rate: ≤4.3%; R0 resection rate: ≥79%. For patients with LRRC, the calculated benchmark threshold for major complication rate was ≤53%; Comprehensive Complication Index: ≤34.1; 30-day mortality rate: 0%; 90-day mortality rate: ≤6%; R0 resection rate: ≥77%. Conclusions: The reported benchmarks for PE in patients with LARC and LRRC represent the best available care for this patient group globally and can be used for rigorous assessment of surgical quality and to facilitate quality improvement initiatives at international exenteration centres.

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.