Hideaki Yano, Alex Mirnezami, Masataka Ikeda, Kay Uehara, Shuichiro Matoba, Yuichiro Tsukada, Toshiki Mukai, Kei Kimura, Yudai Fukui, Naoyuki Toyota
Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a radical and extreme surgical procedure for en bloc removal of pelvic organs and tissues contiguously involved by cancer. PE has long been the mainstay, and often the only option to potentially provide cure, or long term control, in the management of patients with locally advanced and recurrent abdomino-pelvic malignancies. The concept focusses on attaining an R0 cancer resection margin (most commonly defined as ≥ 1 mm), by surgically removing margin-involved or margin-threatened organs and structures, as this is consistently demonstrated as the most important predictor of outcome [1]. Naturally, however, such radicality comes with significant risks of complications; of loss of function and quality of life; as well as substantial healthcare resource utilisation and health economic impact. Consequently, the deployment of PE as a surgical solution has in the past been correctly cautious, but at times also overly pessimistic, informed by historically poor outcomes.
In more recent times, the PE landscape has undergone a paradigm shift. Incremental developments in multiple disciplines have helped pave the way for substantially improved outcomes in carefully selected patients. These include but are not limited to advances in diagnostic radiology; oncology; anaesthesia and peri-operative medicine; intensive care; surgical devices and techniques; understanding of the pelvic anatomy; management and control of haemorrhage; reconstructive options; and interventional radiology [2]. As a result, the field of PE has evolved, with broadening indications and applications, and greater radicality, manifested by the fact that pelvic bones are increasingly resected as one of the most outermost tissues in a margin of concern, and reflecting the “higher and wider” approaches achievable [3].
The increasing application of PE has also emphasised some of the glaring unmet needs in the field. Examples of these are highlighted below but are not exhaustive. A lack of standardisation and differing protocols in MRI imaging techniques is one such unmet need. Poorly designed multidisciplinary team (MDT) models for the discussion of some of the most complex and heavily pre-treated patients an MDT may receive is another such unmet need. A further concern has been in the use of surgical terminology. Contemporary PE represents an umbrella term that in the modern era encompasses a diversity of resections, and to date a confusing array of terminology has been used to describe the different surgical interventions possible. Pathological handling of specimens, for example the method of specimen orientation and marking, the number of sections taken, and management of specimens with bone, is a further area of unmet need requiring a standardisation of reporting and minimum pathological datasets. Nevertheless to date no formal international system has been described. Importantly, as a result of the lack
{"title":"New National Network of Experts (Japan Pelvic Exenteration Network: J-PEN) Formed in a Bid to Improve Outcomes of Pelvic Exenteration in Japan","authors":"Hideaki Yano, Alex Mirnezami, Masataka Ikeda, Kay Uehara, Shuichiro Matoba, Yuichiro Tsukada, Toshiki Mukai, Kei Kimura, Yudai Fukui, Naoyuki Toyota","doi":"10.1002/ags3.70050","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ags3.70050","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a radical and extreme surgical procedure for <i>en bloc</i> removal of pelvic organs and tissues contiguously involved by cancer. PE has long been the mainstay, and often the only option to potentially provide cure, or long term control, in the management of patients with locally advanced and recurrent abdomino-pelvic malignancies. The concept focusses on attaining an R0 cancer resection margin (most commonly defined as ≥ 1 mm), by surgically removing margin-involved or margin-threatened organs and structures, as this is consistently demonstrated as the most important predictor of outcome [<span>1</span>]. Naturally, however, such radicality comes with significant risks of complications; of loss of function and quality of life; as well as substantial healthcare resource utilisation and health economic impact. Consequently, the deployment of PE as a surgical solution has in the past been correctly cautious, but at times also overly pessimistic, informed by historically poor outcomes.</p><p>In more recent times, the PE landscape has undergone a paradigm shift. Incremental developments in multiple disciplines have helped pave the way for substantially improved outcomes in carefully selected patients. These include but are not limited to advances in diagnostic radiology; oncology; anaesthesia and peri-operative medicine; intensive care; surgical devices and techniques; understanding of the pelvic anatomy; management and control of haemorrhage; reconstructive options; and interventional radiology [<span>2</span>]. As a result, the field of PE has evolved, with broadening indications and applications, and greater radicality, manifested by the fact that pelvic bones are increasingly resected as one of the most outermost tissues in a margin of concern, and reflecting the “higher and wider” approaches achievable [<span>3</span>].</p><p>The increasing application of PE has also emphasised some of the glaring unmet needs in the field. Examples of these are highlighted below but are not exhaustive. A lack of standardisation and differing protocols in MRI imaging techniques is one such unmet need. Poorly designed multidisciplinary team (MDT) models for the discussion of some of the most complex and heavily pre-treated patients an MDT may receive is another such unmet need. A further concern has been in the use of surgical terminology. Contemporary PE represents an umbrella term that in the modern era encompasses a diversity of resections, and to date a confusing array of terminology has been used to describe the different surgical interventions possible. Pathological handling of specimens, for example the method of specimen orientation and marking, the number of sections taken, and management of specimens with bone, is a further area of unmet need requiring a standardisation of reporting and minimum pathological datasets. Nevertheless to date no formal international system has been described. Importantly, as a result of the lack","PeriodicalId":8030,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery","volume":"9 5","pages":"880-882"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ags3.70050","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145012023","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}