-
Colorectal Disease : the Official... May 2017Pelvic exenteration is a complex surgical procedure associated with considerable morbidity. Quality of life (QoL) is a crucial metric of surgical outcome. The aim of... (Review)
Review
AIM
Pelvic exenteration is a complex surgical procedure associated with considerable morbidity. Quality of life (QoL) is a crucial metric of surgical outcome. The aim of this review was to assess the QoL following pelvic exenteration for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and local recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC).
METHOD
A comprehensive search of studies published between 2000 and 2016 that examined QoL outcome following pelvic exenteration was performed. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Colorectal (FACT-C), SF-36 version 2, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30, and Brief Pain Inventory assessments from these studies were reviewed.
RESULTS
Seven studies reporting on 382 patients were included. Baseline QoL was the strongest predictor of postoperative QoL. Female gender, total pelvic exenteration with or without bone resection, and positive surgical margins were associated with a reduced QoL. In the majority of patients, QoL gradually improved between 2 and 9 months post-operation.
CONCLUSION
QoL is an important patient-reported outcome. This review highlights factors associated with reduced postoperative QoL that should be borne in mind when surgical resection is being considered.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Pelvic Exenteration; Postoperative Complications; Postoperative Period; Quality of Life; Rectal Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28267255
DOI: 10.1111/codi.13647 -
Annals of Surgery Feb 2017The aim of this study was to assess resection margin status and its impact on survival after abdominoperineal excision and pelvic exenteration for primary or recurrent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to assess resection margin status and its impact on survival after abdominoperineal excision and pelvic exenteration for primary or recurrent rectal cancer.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
Resection margin is important to guide therapy and to evaluate patient prognosis.
METHODS
A meta-analysis was performed to assess the impact of resection margin status on survival, and a regression analysis to analyze positive resection margin rates reported in the literature.
RESULTS
The analysis included 111 studies reporting on 19,607 participants after abdominoperineal excision, and 30 studies reporting on 1326 participants after pelvic exenteration. The positive resection margin rates for abdominoperineal excision were 14.7% and 24.0% for pelvic exenteration. The overall survival and disease-free survival rates were significantly worse for patients with positive compared with negative resection margins after abdominoperineal excision [hazard ratio (HR) 2.64, P < 0.01; HR 3.70, P < 0.01, respectively] and after pelvic exenteration (HR 2.23, P < 0.01; HR 2.93, P < 0.01, respectively). For patients undergoing abdominoperineal excision with positive resection margins, the reported tumor sites were 57% anterior, 15% posterior, 10% left or right lateral, 8% circumferential, 10% unspecified. A significant decrease in positive resection margin rates was identified over time for abdominoperineal excision. Although positive resection margin rates did not significantly change with the size of the study, some small size studies reported higher than expected positive resection margin rates.
CONCLUSIONS
Resection margin status influences survival and a multidisciplinary approach in experienced centers may result in reduced positive resection margins. For advanced anterior rectal cancer, posterior pelvic exenteration instead of abdominoperineal excision may improve resection margins.
Topics: Abdomen; Humans; Margins of Excision; Pelvic Exenteration; Perineum; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27537531
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001963 -
European Journal of Surgical Oncology :... Aug 2015Pelvic exenteration requires complete resection of the tumor with negative margins to be considered a curative surgery. The purpose of this review is to assess the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Pelvic exenteration requires complete resection of the tumor with negative margins to be considered a curative surgery. The purpose of this review is to assess the optimal preoperative evaluation and surgical approach in patients with recurrent cervical cancer to increase the chances of achieving a curative surgery with decreased morbidity and mortality in the era of concurrent chemoradiotherapy.
METHODS
Review of English publications pertaining to cervical cancer within the last 25 years were included using PubMed and Cochrane Library searches.
RESULTS
Modern imaging (MRI and PET-CT) does not accurately identify local extension of microscopic disease and is inadequate for preoperative planning of extent of resection. Today, only half of pelvic exenteration procedures obtain uninvolved surgical margins.
CONCLUSION
Clear margins are required for curative pelvic exenterations, but are poorly predictable by pre-operative assessment. More extensive surgery, i.e. the infra-elevator exenteration with vulvectomy, is a logical surgical choice to increase the rate of clear margins and to improve patient survival following surgery for recurrent cervical carcinoma.
Topics: Chemoradiotherapy; Female; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Pelvic Exenteration; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 25922209
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2015.03.235 -
Techniques in Coloproctology Nov 2018Pelvic exenteration represents the best treatment option for cure of locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer. This systematic review sought to evaluate current...
BACKGROUND
Pelvic exenteration represents the best treatment option for cure of locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer. This systematic review sought to evaluate current literature regarding short and long term treatment outcomes and long term survival following pelvic exenteration.
METHODS
A systematic search of the MEDLINE, PubMed and Ovid databases was conducted to identify suitable articles published between 2001 and 2016. The article search was performed in line with Cochrane methodology and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses statement.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies were included in the final analysis, incorporating 1016 patients. Sixty-three percent of patients were male and median patient age was 59 years. Median operating time was 7.2 h with median blood loss of 1.9 l. Median postoperative stay was 17 days with a median 30-day mortality of 0. Complication rates were 31.6-86% with a return to theatre rate of 14.6%. Median R0 resection rate was 74% and was higher for primary cancer (82.6% versus 58% for recurrent cancer). Mean overall survival was 31 months and median 5-year survival was 32%. Recurrently identified indicators of adverse outcome included R1/2 resection, preoperative pelvic pain and previous abdominoperineal resection of the rectum.
CONCLUSIONS
Pelvic exenteration remains a major operation associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite advances in preoperative assessment and staging, R1 resection rates remain high. There is also a high degree of variability of reporting outcomes and standardisation of this process would aid comparison of results between centres and drive forward research in this area.
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Operative Time; Pelvic Exenteration; Pelvis; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Survival Rate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30506497
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-018-1883-1 -
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi Jun 2014To evaluate the current status and outcomes of pelvic exenteration (PE) for recurrent cervical cancer. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the current status and outcomes of pelvic exenteration (PE) for recurrent cervical cancer.
METHODS
The following electronic databases has been searched on recurrent cervical cancer management and treatment:Chinese Biological Medicine Disk (CBM), PubMed and Cochrane library. All retrieved studies had to fulfill the following inclusion criteria: cohort studies of recurrent cervical cancer, containing information of detailed patient and operation characteristics as well as the survival rate. Only publications in the English literature were included. All eligible literatures between Jan. 1990 and Aug. 2013 were assessed for quality. Relevant basic characteristics, complications, survival rate and prognostic factors were reviewed.
RESULTS
There were eight trials involving 607 patients with cervical cancer received PE, including 515 cases with recurrent disease and 92 cases with primary disease. Four hundred and ninety patients had received total pelvic exenteration (TPE) operation, 103 underwent anterior pelvic exenteration (APE) and 14 received posterior pelvic exenteration (PPE). The 5-year overall survival rate for recurrent cervical cancer fluctuate from 26.7% to 56.0%. Complication rates were from 34.3% to 83.3% and the mortality rate was 1.2% (7/607). Among the relevant factors affecting survival time, resection margin status seemed to be the most important.
CONCLUSION
Based on this systematic review, PE does help improve the survival of recurrent cervical cancer patients on the basis of strict selection of candidates.
Topics: Female; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Pelvic Exenteration; Postoperative Complications; Survival Analysis; Survival Rate; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 25169641
DOI: No ID Found -
European Journal of Surgical Oncology :... Oct 2019Palliative pelvic exenteration (PPE) is a technically complex operation with high morbidity and mortality rates, considered in patients with limited life expectancy....
OBJECTIVE
Palliative pelvic exenteration (PPE) is a technically complex operation with high morbidity and mortality rates, considered in patients with limited life expectancy. There is little evidence to guide practice. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the impact of PPE on symptom relief and quality of life (QoL).
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines using Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASe, and PubMed databases for studies reporting on outcomes of PPE for symptom relief or QoL. Descriptive statistics were used on pooled patient cohorts.
RESULTS
Twenty-three historical cohorts and case series were included, comprising 509 patients. No comparative studies were found. Most malignancies were of colorectal, gynaecological and urological origin. Common indications for PPE were pain, symptomatic fistula, bleeding, malodour, obstruction and pelvic sepsis. The pooled median postoperative morbidity rate was 53.6% (13-100%), the median in-hospital mortality was 6.3% (0-66.7%), and median OS was 14 months (4-40 months). Some symptom relief was reported in a median of 79% (50-100%) of the patients, although the magnitude of effect was poorly measured. Data for QoL measures were inconclusive. Five studies discouraged performing PPE in any patient, while 18 studies concluded that the procedure can be considered in highly selected patients.
CONCLUSION
Available evidence on PPE is of low-quality. Morbidity and mortality rates are high with a short median OS interval. While some symptom relief may be afforded by this procedure, evidence for improvement in QoL is limited. A highly selective individualised approach is required to optimise the risk:benefit equation.
Topics: Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Palliative Care; Patient-Centered Care; Pelvic Exenteration; Pelvic Neoplasms
PubMed: 31255441
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2019.06.011 -
European Journal of Surgical Oncology :... Aug 2016Pelvic exenteration is a radical operative treatment reserved for the management of a number of advanced primary and recurrent pelvic malignancies, including, rectal,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pelvic exenteration is a radical operative treatment reserved for the management of a number of advanced primary and recurrent pelvic malignancies, including, rectal, gynaecological and urological. The advances in radiological staging, surgical techniques and greater use of chemotherapeutic agents haves translated clinically into improvements in the overall survival of this cohort of patients, irrespective of underlying disease pathology. Consequently, a greater proportion of the surviving population will present to healthcare professionals with a range of physical and psychological issues, therefore the profiling and understanding of the health-related quality of life (HrQoL) is integral to the long term management of this cohort of patients. The aim of this systematic review is to identify HrQoL themes from the current literature relevant to patients undergoing a pelvic exenteration.
METHODS
Literature searches were performed in three databases: MEDLINE (1975-November 2015), EMBASE and CINAHL. Each study was evaluated with regards to its design and statistical methodology. Data quality was reviewed in accordance with the Newcastle-Ottowa score and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist (CAPS) for quantitative and qualitative data accordingly. A narrative synthesis of all identified HrQoL issues was undertaken using the principles of content analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 24 studies were identified; 20 quantitative and 4 qualitative with 976 patients assessed in total. HrQoL was assessed as the main primary endpoint in 15 studies. The majority of studies were retrospective. Baseline data prior to the initiation of treatments were available in 6 studies alone. Nine themes were identified across the literature, which included body image, social impact, sexual function, treatment expectations, symptoms, communication, psychological impact, relationships and work and finance.
CONCLUSIONS
Pelvic exenteration has a wide ranging impact on patients HrQoL affecting a range of physical and psychological domains.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Employment; Female; Genital Neoplasms, Female; Health Status; Humans; Interpersonal Relations; Male; Mental Health; Pelvic Exenteration; Quality of Life; Rectal Neoplasms; Reproductive Health; Role; Social Participation; Urologic Neoplasms
PubMed: 26968226
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.01.007 -
European Journal of Surgical Oncology :... Nov 2022To review the evidence regarding surgical advances in the management of primary locally advanced rectal cancer. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To review the evidence regarding surgical advances in the management of primary locally advanced rectal cancer.
BACKGROUND
The management of rectal cancer has evolved significantly in recent decades, with improved (neo)adjuvant treatment strategies and enhanced perioperative protocols. Centralization of care for complex, advanced cases has enabled surgeons in these units to undertake more ambitious surgical procedures.
METHODS
A Pubmed, Ovid, Embase and Cochrane database search was conducted according to the predetermined search strategy. The review protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021245582).
RESULTS
14 studies were identified which reported on the outcomes of 3,188 patients who underwent pelvic exenteration (PE) for primary rectal cancer. 50% of patients had neoadjuvant radiotherapy. 24.2% underwent flap reconstruction, 9.4% required a bony resection and 34 patients underwent a major vascular excision. 73.9% achieved R0 resection, with 33.1% experiencing a major complication. Median length of hospital stay ranged from 13 to 19 days. 1.6% of patients died within 30 days of their operation. Five-year overall survival (OS) rates ranged 29%-78%.
LIMITATIONS
The studies included in our review were mostly single-centre observational studies published prior to the introduction of modern neoadjuvant treatment regimens. It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis on the basis that most were non-randomized, non-comparative studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Pelvic exenteration offers patients with locally advanced rectal cancer the chance of long-term survival with acceptable levels of morbidity. Increased experience facilitates more radical procedures, with the introduction of new platforms and/or reconstructive options.
Topics: Humans; Pelvic Exenteration; Retrospective Studies; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35031157
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.12.471 -
Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons... Feb 2024Pelvic exenteration (PE) is now the standard of care for locally advanced (LARC) and locally recurrent (LRRC) rectal cancer. Reports of the significant short-term... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Pelvic exenteration (PE) is now the standard of care for locally advanced (LARC) and locally recurrent (LRRC) rectal cancer. Reports of the significant short-term morbidity and survival advantage conferred by R0 resection are well established. However, longer-term outcomes are rarely addressed. This systematic review focuses on long-term oncosurgical and quality of life (QoL) outcomes following PE for rectal cancer.
METHODS
A systematic review of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and Embase databases was conducted, in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies were included if they reported long-term outcomes following PE for LARC or LRRC. Studies with fewer than 20 patients were excluded.
FINDINGS
A total of 25 papers reported outcomes for 5,489 patients. Of these, 4,744 underwent PE for LARC (57.5%) or LRRC (42.5%). R0 resection rates ranged from 23.2% to 98.4% and from 14.9% to 77.8% respectively. The overall morbidity rates were 17.8-87.0%. The median survival ranged from 12.5 to 140.0 months. None of these studies reported functional outcomes and only four studies reported QoL outcomes. Numerous different metrics and timepoints were utilised, with QoL scores frequently returning to baseline by 12 months.
CONCLUSIONS
This review demonstrates that PE is safe, with a good prospect of R0 resection and acceptable mortality rates in selected patients. Morbidity rates remain high, highlighting the importance of shared decision making with patients. Longer-term oncological outcomes as well as QoL and functional outcomes need to be addressed in future studies. Development of a core outcomes set would facilitate better reporting in this complex and challenging patient group.
PubMed: 38362800
DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2023.0031 -
Colorectal Disease : the Official... Feb 2024There is increasing research interest in pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer. Heterogeneity in outcome reporting can prevent meaningful... (Review)
Review
AIM
There is increasing research interest in pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer. Heterogeneity in outcome reporting can prevent meaningful interpretation and valid synthesis of pooled data and meta-analyses. The aim of this study was to assess homogeneity in outcome measures in the current pelvic exenteration literature.
METHOD
MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL and Scopus databases were searched from 1990 to 25 April 2023 to identify studies reporting outcomes of pelvic exenteration for locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer. All reported outcomes were extracted, merged with those of similar meaning and assigned a domain.
RESULTS
Of 4137 abstracts screened, 156 studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 2765 outcomes were reported, of which 17% were accompanied by a definition. There were 1157 unique outcomes, merged into 84 standardized outcomes and assigned one of seven domains. The most reported domains were complications (147 studies, 94%), survival (127, 81%) and surgical outcomes (123, 79%). Resection margins were reported in 122 studies (78%): the definition of a clear resection margin was not provided in 45 studies (37%), it was unclear in 11 studies (9%) and not specified beyond microscopically 'clear' or 'negative' in 31 (28%). Measurements of 2, 1, 0.5 mm and any healthy tissue were all used to define R0 margins.
CONCLUSION
There is significant heterogeneity in outcome measurement and reporting in the current pelvic exenteration literature, raising concerns about the validity of comparative or collaborative studies between centres and meta-analyses. Coordinated international collaboration is required to define core outcome sets and benchmarks.
Topics: Humans; Pelvic Exenteration; Treatment Outcome; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Rectal Neoplasms; Benchmarking; Margins of Excision; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 38131647
DOI: 10.1111/codi.16844