Transanal approaches to rectal neoplasia

Meagan Read MD, Seth Felder MD
{"title":"Transanal approaches to rectal neoplasia","authors":"Meagan Read MD,&nbsp;Seth Felder MD","doi":"10.1016/j.scrs.2022.100899","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span><span>Local excision is a well-tolerated, low risk, curative oncologic operative approach for highly selected early-stage </span>rectal cancers<span>. As with any cancer treatment, cure is balanced with morbidity and </span></span>quality of life<span>. In this respect, the best management for a patient with an early rectal cancer highlights the clinical dilemma balancing concerns for over- versus under-treatment. That is to say, radical resection<span> may be oncologically equivalent to local excision for true early stage cancer, yet, results in much greater morbidity, including the possibility of a permanent colostomy<span>. Alternatively, local excision of a presumed early rectal cancer may be oncologically inferior to mesorectal excision, potentially compromising the cancer outcome dramatically. Navigating between these two surgical extremes requires incorporation of multiple critical clinico-pathologic variables, including accurate clinical staging, precise tumor localization, careful histologic assessment to recognize higher risk features, and patient fitness and preference.</span></span></span></p><p>While pelvic failure following local excision is generally more common than after radical resection, the gap between disease-free and overall survival is not quite as wide, particularly among lower-risk pT1Nx cancers in patients following LE. The lack of histologic lymph node staging and reliance on imperfect imaging to risk estimate micrometastatic mesorectal nodal disease, the higher morbidity associated with completion mesorectal excision pursued for a histologically higher-risk early rectal cancer, and the greater risk of an extended resection at salvage operation for locoregional recurrence collectively emphasize the degree of caution when considering a more limited excisional operative approach.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55956,"journal":{"name":"Seminars in Colon and Rectal Surgery","volume":"33 3","pages":"Article 100899"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seminars in Colon and Rectal Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043148922000409","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Local excision is a well-tolerated, low risk, curative oncologic operative approach for highly selected early-stage rectal cancers. As with any cancer treatment, cure is balanced with morbidity and quality of life. In this respect, the best management for a patient with an early rectal cancer highlights the clinical dilemma balancing concerns for over- versus under-treatment. That is to say, radical resection may be oncologically equivalent to local excision for true early stage cancer, yet, results in much greater morbidity, including the possibility of a permanent colostomy. Alternatively, local excision of a presumed early rectal cancer may be oncologically inferior to mesorectal excision, potentially compromising the cancer outcome dramatically. Navigating between these two surgical extremes requires incorporation of multiple critical clinico-pathologic variables, including accurate clinical staging, precise tumor localization, careful histologic assessment to recognize higher risk features, and patient fitness and preference.

While pelvic failure following local excision is generally more common than after radical resection, the gap between disease-free and overall survival is not quite as wide, particularly among lower-risk pT1Nx cancers in patients following LE. The lack of histologic lymph node staging and reliance on imperfect imaging to risk estimate micrometastatic mesorectal nodal disease, the higher morbidity associated with completion mesorectal excision pursued for a histologically higher-risk early rectal cancer, and the greater risk of an extended resection at salvage operation for locoregional recurrence collectively emphasize the degree of caution when considering a more limited excisional operative approach.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经肛门入路治疗直肠肿瘤
局部切除是一种耐受良好、低风险、可治愈的肿瘤手术方法,适用于高度选择性的早期直肠癌。与任何癌症治疗一样,治愈与发病率和生活质量是平衡的。在这方面,对早期直肠癌患者的最佳管理突出了平衡过度治疗与治疗不足的临床困境。也就是说,对于真正的早期癌症,根治性切除在肿瘤学上可能等同于局部切除,但其导致的发病率要高得多,包括永久性结肠造口的可能性。另外,早期直肠癌的局部切除在肿瘤学上可能不如肠系膜切除,这可能会极大地影响癌症的预后。在这两个极端手术之间进行导航需要结合多个关键的临床病理变量,包括准确的临床分期,精确的肿瘤定位,仔细的组织学评估以识别高风险特征,以及患者的适应性和偏好。虽然局部切除后盆腔衰竭通常比根治性切除后更常见,但无病生存和总生存之间的差距并不大,特别是在LE后低风险pT1Nx癌症患者中。缺乏组织学淋巴结分期和依赖于不完善的影像来评估微转移性肠系膜结疾病的风险,对组织学上高风险的早期直肠癌进行完整的肠系膜切除相关的高发病率,以及在局部复发的挽救性手术中进行延长切除的更大风险,这些都强调了在考虑更有限的切除手术方法时的谨慎程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: Seminars in Colon and Rectal Surgery offers a comprehensive and coordinated review of a single, timely topic related to the diagnosis and treatment of proctologic diseases. Each issue is an organized compendium of practical information that serves as a lasting reference for colorectal surgeons, general surgeons, surgeons in training and their colleagues in medicine with an interest in colorectal disorders.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Introduction Consilience of healthcare legislation, complexity science & computational analysis Artificial intelligence for the colorectal surgeon in 2024 – A narrative review of Prevalence, Policies, and (needed) Protections The impact of federally legislated colon and rectal cancer screening programs and policy in the United States
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1