-
RoFo : Fortschritte Auf Dem Gebiete Der... Oct 2020Cervical cancer is still the fourth most common malignancy in women worldwide and has a high mortality rate. The prognosis as well as the therapy depends largely on the... (Review)
Review
Cervical cancer is still the fourth most common malignancy in women worldwide and has a high mortality rate. The prognosis as well as the therapy depends largely on the extent of the tumor at the time of initial diagnosis. This shows the importance of correct staging of cervical cancer. In order to promote a globally uniform approach, staging of cervical cancer in the past was based on widespread examinations such as exam under anesthesia, histology from cervical conization or biopsy, systematic lymphadenectomy, cystoscopy, proctoscopy, i. v.-pyelogram and chest X-ray. However, as the primary tumor stage was often underestimated, the 2018 revised FIGO classification now permits cross-sectional imaging techniques and pathological findings to be incorporated into disease staging or an already existing stage to be adapted based on radiological findings. Thanks to its excellent soft tissue contrast, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the method of choice for local-regional staging of cervical cancer, evaluating the response to treatment, detecting tumor recurrence and for follow-up examinations. It is important that radiologists interpreting pelvic MRI in case of suspected cervical cancer are familiar with the current FIGO staging system. This is the only way to determine the tumor stage as precisely as possible and thus lay the foundation for the success of therapy for patients. The aim of this review is to present the changes of the revised FIGO classification as well as to show the importance of MRI as the method of choice for local-regional tumor staging as a complement to clinical examination. KEY POINTS:: · Cervical cancer is still the world's fourth most common female cancer and has a high mortality rate.. · The FIGO classification for staging cervical cancer in the past was based on clinical and widespread examinations.. · The primary tumor stage has often been underestimated with the FIGO staging system since 2018.. · Since 2018, cross-sectional imaging techniques have been incorporated into disease staging.. · MRI is the method of choice for local-regional tumor staging, evaluation of the response to treatment, detection of tumor recurrence and possible complications.. CITATION FORMAT: · Merz J, Bossart M, Bamberg F et al. Revised FIGO Staging for Cervical Cancer - A New Role for MRI. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2020; 192: 937 - 944.
Topics: Cervix Uteri; Female; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neoplasm Staging; Prognosis; Sensitivity and Specificity; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 32731266
DOI: 10.1055/a-1198-5729 -
Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery Jan 2018With increased use of explosive devices in warfare, anal trauma is often seen coupled with more complex pelviperineal injury. While the associated mortality is high,... (Review)
Review
With increased use of explosive devices in warfare, anal trauma is often seen coupled with more complex pelviperineal injury. While the associated mortality is high, casualties that survive are often left with disabling fecal incontinence from damage to the anosphincteric complex. After resolution of the acute insult, the initial evaluation mandates a thorough physical exam, including endoscopic evaluation with rigid proctoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy, as well as adjunctive testing, specifically anal manometry and endoanal ultrasound. First-line therapy favors bulking agents and antidiarrheals, in conjunction with biofeedback, due to a minimal risk profile. Surgical options range from direct sphincter repairs to complex anosphincteric reconstruction with widely variable results. Most recently, burgeoning therapies in the treatment of fecal incontinence, including sacral nerve stimulation and magnetic anal sphincters, offer excellent alternatives with promising long-term outcomes. In summation, the goal of all interventions is the re-establishment of bowel continence, but, in its absence, permanent fecal diversion for devastating fecal incontinence is a reasonable option with excellent patient satisfaction scores.
PubMed: 29379404
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1602176 -
Annals of Surgery Jan 2023To determine the morbidity, mortality, and pathologic outcomes of transanal total mesorectal resection (taTME) versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (laTME)... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Morbidity, Mortality, and Pathologic Outcomes of Transanal Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer Short-term Outcomes From a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the morbidity, mortality, and pathologic outcomes of transanal total mesorectal resection (taTME) versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (laTME) among patients with rectal cancer with clinical stage I to III rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection.
BACKGROUND
Studies with sufficient numbers of patients allowing clinical acceptance of taTME for rectal cancer are lacking. Thus, we launched a randomized clinical trial to compare the safety and efficacy of taTME versus laTME.
METHODS
A randomized, open-label, phase 3, noninferiority trial was performed at 16 different hospitals in 10 Chinese provinces. The primary endpoints were 3-year disease-free survival and 5-year overall survival. The morbidity and mortality within 30 days after surgery, and pathologic outcomes were compared based on a modified intention-to-treat principle; this analysis was preplanned.
RESULTS
Between April 13, 2016, and June 1, 2021, 1115 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive taTME or laTME. After exclusion of 26 cases, modified intention-to-treat set of taTME versus laTME groups included 544 versus 545 patients. There were no significant differences between taTME and laTME groups in intraoperative complications [26 (4.8%) vs 33 (6.1%); difference, -1.3%; 95% confidence interval (CI), -4.2% to 1.7%; P =0.42], postoperative morbidity [73 (13.4%) vs 66 (12.1%); difference, 1.2%; 95% CI, -2.8% to 5.2%; P =0.53), or mortality [1 (0.2%) vs 1 (0.2%)]. Successful resection occurred in 538 (98.9%) versus 538 (98.7%) patients in taTME versus laTME groups (difference, 0.2%; 95% CI, -1.9% to 2.2%; P >0.99).
CONCLUSIONS
Experienced surgeons can safely perform taTME in selected patients with rectal cancer.
Topics: Humans; Postoperative Complications; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Operative Time; Rectal Neoplasms; Laparoscopy; Morbidity; Rectum; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35815886
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005523 -
Annals of Oncology : Official Journal... Jan 2023The standard treatment of T2-T3ab,N0,M0 rectal cancers is total mesorectal excision (TME) due to the high recurrence rates recorded with local excision. Initial reports... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Short-term outcomes of chemoradiotherapy and local excision versus total mesorectal excision in T2-T3ab,N0,M0 rectal cancer: a multicentre randomised, controlled, phase III trial (the TAU-TEM study).
BACKGROUND
The standard treatment of T2-T3ab,N0,M0 rectal cancers is total mesorectal excision (TME) due to the high recurrence rates recorded with local excision. Initial reports of the combination of pre-operative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) have shown reductions in local recurrence. The TAU-TEM study aims to demonstrate the non-inferiority of local recurrence and the improvement in morbidity achieved with CRT-TEM compared with TME. Here we describe morbidity rates and pathological outcomes.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
This was a prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial including patients with rectal adenocarcinoma staged as T2-T3ab,N0,M0. Patients were randomised to the CRT-TEM or the TME group. Patients included, tolerance of CRT and its adverse effects, surgical complications (Clavien-Dindo and Comprehensive Complication Index classifications) and pathological results (complete response in the CRT-TEM group) were recorded in both groups. Patients attended follow-up controls for local and systemic relapse.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
NCT01308190.
RESULTS
From July 2010 to October 2021, 173 patients from 17 Spanish hospitals were included (CRT-TEM: 86, TME: 87). Eleven were excluded after randomisation (CRT-TEM: 5, TME: 6). Modified intention-to-treat analysis thus included 81 patients in each group. There was no mortality after CRT. In the CRT-TEM group, one patient abandoned CRT, 1/81 (1.2%). The CRT-related morbidity rate was 29.6% (24/81). Post-operative morbidity was 17/82 (20.7%) in the CRT-TEM group and 41/81 (50.6%) in the TME group (P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval 42.9% to 16.7%). One patient died in each group (1.2%). Of the 81 patients in the CRT-TEM group who received the allocated treatment, 67 (82.7%) underwent organ preservation. Pathological complete response in the CRT-TEM group was 44.3% (35/79). In the TME group, pN1 were found in 17/81 (21%).
CONCLUSION
CRT-TEM treatment obtains high pathological complete response rates (44.3%) and a high CRT compliance rate (98.8%). Post-operative complications and hospitalisation rates were significantly lower than those in the TME group. We await the results of the follow-up regarding cancer outcomes and quality of life.
Topics: Humans; Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery; Treatment Outcome; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Rectal Neoplasms; Chemoradiotherapy; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Neoplasm Staging
PubMed: 36220461
DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.09.160 -
Canadian Family Physician Medecin de... May 2013
Topics: Anal Canal; Anus Neoplasms; Contraindications; Humans; Proctoscopy
PubMed: 23673588
DOI: No ID Found -
The Ulster Medical Journal Oct 2015
Topics: Acute Disease; Aminophenols; Aminopyridines; Benzodioxoles; Brain Ischemia; Cystic Fibrosis; Drug Combinations; Endovascular Procedures; Humans; Quinolones; Rectal Neoplasms; Stroke; Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery
PubMed: 26668427
DOI: No ID Found -
Insights Into Imaging Dec 2019Vaginal fistulas (VF) represent abnormal communications between the vagina and either the distal portion of the digestive system or the lower urinary tract, but lack an... (Review)
Review
Vaginal fistulas (VF) represent abnormal communications between the vagina and either the distal portion of the digestive system or the lower urinary tract, but lack an accepted classification and standardised terminology. Regardless of the underlying cause, these uncommon disorders result in profound physical, psychological, sexual and social distress to the patients.Since diagnosis of VF is challenging at gynaecologic examination, ano-proctoscopy and urethro-cystoscopy, imaging is crucial to confirm the fistula, to visualise its site, course and involved organ, and to characterise the underlying disease. The traditional conventional radiographic studies provided limited cross-sectional information and are nowadays largely replaced by CT and MRI studies.Aiming to provide radiologists with an increased familiarity with VF, this pictorial paper summarises their clinical features, pathogenesis and therapeutic approach, and presents the appropriate CT and MRI acquisition and interpretation techniques that vary according to the anatomic site and termination of the fistula. The current role of state-of-the art CT and MRI is presented with examples regarding both entero- (involving the colon, rectum and anus) and urinary (connecting the bladder, distal ureter or urethra) VF. The resulting combined anatomic and functional cross-sectional information is crucial to allow a correct therapeutic choice and surgical planning.
PubMed: 31853752
DOI: 10.1186/s13244-019-0812-9 -
Zeitschrift Fur Gastroenterologie Dec 1972
Topics: Colonic Diseases; Endoscopy; Humans; Intestinal Polyps; Proctoscopy; Sigmoidoscopy
PubMed: 4657271
DOI: No ID Found -
The American Journal of Gastroenterology Dec 2018(Review)
Review
Topics: Biopsy; Chemoradiotherapy; Digital Rectal Examination; Gastroenterologists; Gastroenterology; Humans; Incidence; Mass Screening; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neoplasm Staging; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Proctectomy; Proctoscopy; Professional Role; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Risk Factors
PubMed: 30008472
DOI: 10.1038/s41395-018-0180-y -
Journal of Visceral Surgery Nov 2013Rectal resection with total mesorectal excision is the standard treatment for rectal cancers. Local excision represents an alternative with less post-operative mortality... (Review)
Review
Rectal resection with total mesorectal excision is the standard treatment for rectal cancers. Local excision represents an alternative with less post-operative mortality and morbidity and preservation of intestinal and bladder function. However, local excision cannot provide adequate nodal staging. Presently, endorectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging are used to select the appropriate patients for local excision, those with limited T1 rectal tumors. There is general agreement that the ideal tumors for local excision are less or equal to 3 cm in diameter, superficial (usTis and/or usT1N0), infra-peritoneal, located below the middle rectal valve, and involving no more than 40% of the rectal circumference. Transanal tumor excision is suitable for distal tumors and transanal endoscopic microsurgery for mid and upper lesions. The principles of adequate resection margin, non-fragmentation, and full-thickness excision are similar to those for any cancer resection. Unfavorable pathologic criteria, as assessed on the fixed rectal specimen, include depth of tumor invasion (submucosal [T1sm3] or muscular [T2]), positive resection margins, vascular and/or lymphatic invasion, and poor differentiation. Further radical surgery is required in case of unfavorable criteria. Simple surveillance may be advised for superficial tumors (T1sm1) without any unfavorable criteria. Management of T1sm2 tumors without any unfavorable criteria should be discussed on a case-by-case basis.
Topics: Anal Canal; Humans; Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery; Patient Selection; Proctoscopy; Rectal Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24016715
DOI: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2013.08.004