Minimally invasive pelvic exenteration for primary or recurrent locally advanced rectal cancer:A glimpse into the future

Surgeons have grappled with the treatment of recurrent and T4b locally advanced rectal cancer(LARC)for many years.Their main objectives are to increase the overall survival and quality of life of the patients and to mitigate postoperative complications.Currently,pelvic exenteration(PE)with or without neoadjuvant treatment is a curative treatment when negative resection margins are achieved.The traditional open approach has been favored by many surgeons.However,the technological advancements in minimally invasive surgery have radically changed the surgical options.Recent studies have demonstrated promising results in postoperative complications and oncological outcomes after robotic or laparoscopic PE.A recent retrospective study entitled“Feasibility and safety of minimally invasive multivisceral resection for T4b rectal cancer:A 9-year review”was published in the World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.As we read this article with great interest,we decided to delve into the latest data regarding the benefits and risks of minimally invasive PE for LARC.Currently,the small number of suitable patients,limited surgeon experience,and steep learning curve are hindering the establishment of minimally invasive PE.

Comparison of immediate surgical outcomes between posterior pelvic exenteration and standard resection for primary rectal cancer: A matched case-control study

AIM: To determine the immediate surgical outcome and recovery of bowel function following posterior pelvic exenteration (PPE) for primary rectal cancer with suspected local invasion to the female internal reproductive organs, in comparison with a case-control series of standard resection for primary rectal cancer. METHODS: We analyzed 10 consecutive female patients undergoing PPE for the aforementioned indication between December 2003 and May 2006 in a single institution. Data were prospectively collected during hospitalization, including patient demographics, tumor- and operation-related variables and early surgical outcomes. These patients were compared with a group of female patients, matched for age, co-morbidity and location of tumor, who underwent standard resection for primary rectal cancer in the same period (non PPE group). RESULTS: In the PPE group, pathological reports showed direct invasion of the reproductive organs in 4 cases and an involvement of lymph nodes in 7 cases. A sphincter-saving operation was performed in each case. Operative time was longer (274 min vs 157 min, P < 0.001) and blood loss was greater (769 mL vs 203 mL, P = 0.008) in the PPE group. Time to first bowel movement, time to first defecation, time to resumption of normal diet, and hospital stay were not significantly different between the two groups. Postoperative complication rates were also similar.CONCLUSION: PPE for rectal cancer was associatedwith longer operative time and increased blood loss, but did not compromise immediate surgical outcomes and postoperative bowel function compared to standard rectal resection.

Critical evaluation of contemporary management in a new Pelvic Exenteration Unit: The first 25 consecutive cases

To critically appraise short-term outcomes in patients treated in a new Pelvic Exenteration (PE) Unit. METHODSThis retrospective observational study was conducted by analysing prospectively collected data for the first 25 patients (16 males, 9 females) who underwent PE for advanced pelvic tumours in our PE Unit between January 2012 and October 2016. Data evaluated included age, co-morbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status, preoperative adjuvant treatment, intra-operative blood loss, procedural duration, perioperative adverse event, lengths of intensive care unit (ICU) stay and hospital stay, and oncological outcome. Quantitative data were summarized as percentage or median and range, and statistically assessed by the χ2 test or Fisher’s exact test, as applicable. RESULTSAll 25 patients received comprehensive preoperative assessment via our dedicated multidisciplinary team approach. Long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was provided, if indicated. The median age of the patients was 61.9-year-old. The median ASA and ECOG scores were 2 and 0, respectively. The indications for PE were locally invasive rectal adenocarcinoma (n = 13), advanced colonic adenocarcinoma (n = 5), recurrent cervical carcinoma (n = 3) and malignant sacral chordoma (n = 3). The procedures comprised 10 total PEs, 4 anterior PEs, 7 posterior PEs and 4 isolated lateral PEs. The median follow-up period was 17.6 mo. The median operative time was 11.5 h. The median volume of blood loss was 3306 mL, and the median volume of red cell transfusion was 1475 mL. The median lengths of ICU stay and of hospital stay were 1 d and 21 d, respectively. There was no case of mortality related to surgery. There were a total of 20 surgical morbidities, which occurred in 12 patients. The majority of the complications were grade 2 Clavien-Dindo. Only 2 patients experienced grade 3 Clavien-Dindo complications, and both required procedural interventions. One patient experienced grade 4a Clavien-Dindo complication, requiring temporary renal dialysis without long-term disability. The R0 resection rate was 64%. There were 7 post-exenteration recurrences during the follow-up period. No statistically significant relationship was found among histological origin of tumour, microscopic resection margin status and postoperative recurrence (P = 0.67). Four patients died from sequelae of recurrent disease during follow-up. CONCLUSIONBy utilizing modern assessment and surgical techniques, our PE Unit can manage complex pelvic cancers with acceptable morbidities, zero-rate mortality and equivalent oncologic outcomes.

Total pelvic exenteration and a new model of diversion for giant primitive neuroectodermal tumor of prostate: A case report and review of the literature

The present study reports a rare primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET) of prostate.A 27-year-old male was admitted to Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital (Harbin,China) for dysuria and dyschezia. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a large mass thatmay involve the bladder and rectum next to the prostate. Histopathological analysis of biopsyof prostate indicated mesenchymal origin tumor, and immunohistochemistric stainingconfirmed diagnosis of PNET of prostate. En bloc total pelvic exenteration and double barrelsigmoidostomy were performed. Double stomas in the skin incision were used for fecal andurinary diversion, respectively. Short-term outcome is satisfactory, while long-term efficacyremains to be poor. Clinical features of PNET of prostate should be paid much more attentionand radical surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy should be recommended.

Long term outcome and quality of life after pelvic exenteration for recurrent endometrial and cervical cancers

Introduction: Pelvic exenteration can cure recurrent gynecological malignancies. However, treatment morbidity is over 50% in radiated pelves. We evaluated the outcome, the morbidity and the quality of life after exenteration. Methods: Patients who underwent an exenteration for recurrent cervical or endometrial cancer in our institution between 1999 and 2011 were retrieved. Survival rates were calculated according to Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the logrank test. The EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CX24 questionnaires were sent to patients alive in January 2012. Results: We identified 25 patients: 17 (68%) had cervical cancer and 8 (32%) endometrial cancer. 92% of them had received radiotherapy previously. All patients had a central pelvic recurrence, within a median time of 30 months [4 - 384] from initial treatment. Early complications requiring a re-laparotomy occurred in 9 patients (36%). Late complications included 2 (8%) fistulas, 2 (8%) occlusion and 1 (4%) ureteral stenosis. Complete resection was obtained in 92% of patients. Disease Free and Overall survival rates were better in cervical rather than in endometrial cancer (median DFS in months 17 [2 - 145] vs 9.5 [3 - 21], p = 0.064, median OS in months 20 [2 - 145] vs 13 [4 - 42], p = 0.019). 69% of patients answered the quality of life questionnaires. Mean global quality of life score was 45 on a scale of 0 - 100, none of the patients had a sexual activity. Conclusions: Morbidity of exenteration remains high and quality of life is altered. Endometrial cancer is associated with a poorer prognosis. In those patients, exenteration should be put in balance with best supportive care.

Pelvic Exenteration for Recurrent and Persistent Cervical Cancer

Background： Pelvic exenteration （PE） for primary and recurrent cervical cancer has resulted in favorable survival outcomes, but there are controversies about specific prognosis factors, and up to now, there have been no published reports from China. This study aimed to share our experiences of PE, which were performed in a single institution. Methods： Frorn January 2009 to January 2016, 38 patients with recurrent or persistent cervical cancer were included in the study, and they were followed up until January 2017. Epidemiological and clinicopathological characteristics of patients were compared for survival outcornes in univariate and Cox hazard regression analysis. Results： There were thirty-one and seven patients with recurrent and persistent cervical cancer, respectively. The median age of patients was 45 years （range 29 65 years）. Total, anterior, and posterior PE consisted of 52.6%, 28.9%, and 18.4% of cases, respectively. Early and late complications occurred in 21 （55.3%） patients and 15 （39.5%） patients, respectively. Two （5.3%） patients died due to complications related to surgeries within 3 months after PE. The median overall survival （OS） and disease-free survival （DFS） were 28.5 months （range 9-96 months） and 23 rnonths （range 4.-96 months）, respectively, and 5-year OS and DFS were 48% and 40%, respectively. Cox hazard regression analysis showed that, the margin status of the incision and mesorectal lymph node status were independent risk factors liar OS and DFS. Conclusion： In our patients with rect.rrent and persistent cervical cancer, the practice of PE might achieve favorable survival outcomes. Trial Registration： ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03291275; https：//clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03291275？term-NCT03291275＆rank = 1.

Major complications following exenteration in cases of pelvic malignancy:A 10-year experience

AIM： To analyze the major complications after exenteration of gynecological and rectal malignancies.METHODS： Twenty-two patients with gynecological malignancy and 6 with rectal malignancy underwent pelvic exenteration （PE） between 1996 and 2005. PE was performed for primary malignancy in 71.4% of cases （vulvar cancer in 13, cancer rectal in 5, cervical cancer in 1 and Bartholin＇s gland cancer in 1 cases respectively and recurrent malignancy in 28.6% of cases （cervical cancer in 5, ovarian cancer in 1, uterine sarcoma in 1 and rectal cancer in 1 cases respectively）. Posterior PE, total PE and anterior PE were most often performed.RESULTS： Major complications in the operative field involving the urinary tract infection or the wound dehiscence occurred in 12 patients （42.9%）. Early complications included massive bleeding from the sacral plexus, adult respiratory distress syndrome （ARDS）, thrombophlebitis, acute renal failure, urinary bladder dysfunction, ureter damage, re-operation and pulmonary embolus. Urinary incontinence was observed in 2 women as a late complication. In 1 patient a nephrostomy was performed in 1 patient due to extensive hydronephrosis and 1 patient had complications connected with the gastrointestinal tract. The mortality rate was 7%, of which inter-operative mortality accounted for 3.5%. Major complications often occurred in advanced primary vulvar cancer affecting those with recurrent malignancies.CONCLUSION： PE is more beneficial to patients with primary vulvar and rectal cancer than to those with recurrent cancer. Knowledge of the inherent complications and morbidity of PE is essential.

Feasibility and safety of minimally invasive multivisceral resection for T4b rectal cancer:A 9-year review

BACKGROUND Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and the second highest cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide.About 5%-10%of patients are diagnosed with locally advanced rectal cancer(LARC)on presentation.For LARC invading into other structures(i.e.T4b),multivisceral resection(MVR)and/or pelvic ex-enteration(PE)remains the only potential curative surgical treatment.MVR and/or PE is a major and complex surgery with high post-operative morbidity.Minimally invasive surgery(MIS)has been shown to improve short-term post-operative outcomes in other gastrointestinal malignancies,but there is little evi-dence on its use in MVR,especially so for robotic MVR.This is a single-center retrospective cohort study from 1st January 2015 to 31st March 2023.Inclusion criteria were patients diagnosed with cT4b rectal cancer and underwent MVR,or stage 4 disease with resectable systemic metastases.Pa-tients who underwent curative MVR for locally recurrent rectal cancer,or me-tachronous rectal cancer were also included.Exclusion criteria were patients with systemic metastases with non-resectable disease.All patients planned for elective surgery were enrolled into the standard enhanced recovery after surgery pathway with standard peri-operative management for colorectal surgery.Complex sur-gery was defined based on technical difficulty of surgery(i.e.total PE,bladder-sparing prostatectomy,pelvic lymph node dissection or need for flap creation).Our primary outcomes were the margin status,and complication rates.Cate-gorical values were described as percentages and analysed by the chi-square test.Continuous variables were expressed as median(range)and analysed by Mann-Whitney U test.Cumulative overall survival(OS)and recurrence-free survival(RFS)were analysed using Kaplan-Meier estimates with life table analysis.Log-rank test was performed to determine statistical significance between cumulative estimates.Statistical significance was defined as P<0.05.Meier estimates with life table analysis.Log-rank test was performed to determine statistical significance between cumulative estimates.Statistical significance was defined as P<0.05.RESULTS A total of 46 patients were included in this study[open MVR(oMVR):12(26.1%),miMVR:36(73.9%)].Patients’American Society of Anesthesiologists score,body mass index and co-morbidities were comparable between oMVR and miMVR.There is an increasing trend towards robotic MVR from 2015 to 2023.MiMVR was associated with lower estimated blood loss(EBL)(median 450 vs 1200 mL,P=0.008),major morbidity(14.7%vs 50.0%,P=0.014),post-operative intra-abdominal collections(11.8%vs 50.0%,P=0.006),post-operative ileus(32.4%vs 66.7%,P=0.04)and surgical site infection(11.8%vs 50.0%,P=0.006)compared with oMVR.Length of stay was also shorter for miMVR compared with oMVR(median 10 vs 30 d,P=0.001).Oncological outcomes-R0 resection,recurrence,OS and RFS were comparable between miMVR and oMVR.There was no 30-d mortality.More patients underwent robotic compared with laparoscopic MVR for complex cases(robotic 57.1%vs laparoscopic 7.7%,P=0.004).The operating time was longer for robotic compared with laparoscopic MVR[robotic:602(400-900)min,laparoscopic:Median 455(275-675)min,P<0.001].Incidence of R0 resection was similar(laparoscopic:84.6%vs robotic:76.2%,P=0.555).Overall complication rates,major morbidity rates and 30-d readmission rates were similar between la-paroscopic and robotic MVR.Interestingly,3-year OS(robotic 83.1%vs 58.6%,P=0.008)and RFS(robotic 72.9%vs 34.3%,P=0.002)was superior for robotic compared with laparoscopic MVR.CONCLUSION MiMVR had lower post-operative complications compared to oMVR.Robotic MVR was also safe,with acceptable post-operative complication rates.Prospective studies should be conducted to compare short-term and long-term outcomes between robotic vs laparoscopic MVR.

Beyond total mesorectal excision: The emerging role of minimally invasive surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer

Multivisceral resection and/or pelvic exenteration represents the only potential curative treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer(LARC);however,it poses significant technical challenges,which account for the high risk of morbidity and mortality associated with the procedure.As complete histopathologic resection is the most important determinant of patient outcomes,LARC often requires an extended resection beyond the total mesorectal excision plane to obtain clear re-section margins.In an era when laparoscopic surgery and robot-assisted surgery are becoming commonplace,the optimal approach to extensive pelvic inter-ventions remains controversial.However,acceptance of the suitability of mini-mally invasive surgery is slowly gaining traction.Nonetheless,there is still a lack of evidence in the literature about minimally invasive approaches in multiple and extensive surgical resections,highlighting the need for research studies to explore,validate,and develop this issue.This editorial aims to provide a critical overview of the currently available applications and challenges of minimally invasive abdo-minopelvic surgery for LARC.Furthermore,we discuss recent developments in the field of robotic surgery for LARC,with a specific focus on new innovations and emerging frontiers.

Robotic surgery for multi-visceral resection in locally advanced colorectal cancer:Techniques,benefits and future directions

Colorectal cancer accounts for 10%of diagnosed cancers globally and often presents as advanced disease,necessitating aggressive treatment.With both younger and healthier elderly patients being diagnosed,as well as potentially the need for salvage therapy post total neoadjuvant treatment,surgical options for cure include pelvic exenteration.Whilst typically performed via an open approach,there has been an increased utilisation of minimally invasive techniques including robotic surgery.Offering smaller in-cisions,reduced postoperative pain,and quicker recovery time than open surgery,robotic techniques have demonstrated lower blood loss,shorter hospital stays,and reduced morbidity.Moreover,the er-gonomic design of robotic systems provides surgeons with comfort during long procedures and increased precision.It also offers an increased opportunity for organ preservation and reconstruction whilst maintaining adequate oncological outcomes.As robotic technology continues to evolve and combines with artificial intelligence,it is poised to play an even more significant role in the management of complex colorectal cancer cases,improving survival and long-term outcomes.

Advances in surgical management for locally recurrent rectal cancer: How far have we come?

Locally recurrent rectal cancer(LRRC) is a complex disease with far-reaching implications for the patient. Until recently, research was limited regarding surgical techniques that can increase the ability to perform an en bloc resection with negative margins. This has changed in recent years and therefore outcomes for these patients have improved. Novel radical techniques and adjuncts allow for more radical resections thereby improving the chance of negative resection margins and outcomes. In the past contraindications to surgery included anterior involvement of the pubic bone, sacral invasions above the level of S2/S3 and lateral pelvic wall involvement. However, current data suggests that previously unresectable cases may now be feasible with novel techniques, surgical approaches and reconstructive surgery. The publications to date have only reported small patient pools with the research conducted by highly specialised units. Moreover, the short and long-term oncological outcomes are currently under review. Therefore although surgical options for LRRC have expanded significantly, one should balance the treatment choices available against the morbidity associated with the procedure and select the right patient for it.