Ee Jin Kim, Chan Wook Kim, Jong Lyul Lee, Yong Sik Yoon, In Ja Park, Seok-Byung Lim, Chang Sik Yu, Jin Cheon Kim
{"title":"部分直肠系膜切除术可作为中段直肠癌的主要治疗方案:倾向评分匹配回顾性分析。","authors":"Ee Jin Kim, Chan Wook Kim, Jong Lyul Lee, Yong Sik Yoon, In Ja Park, Seok-Byung Lim, Chang Sik Yu, Jin Cheon Kim","doi":"10.3393/ac.2022.00689.0098","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Although partial mesorectal excision (PME) and total mesorectal excision (TME) is primarily indicated for the upper and lower rectal cancer, respectively, few studies have evaluated whether PME or TME is more optimal for middle rectal cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study included 671 patients with middle and upper rectal cancer who underwent robot-assisted PME or TME. The 2 groups were optimized by propensity score matching of sex, age, clinical stage, tumor location, and neoadjuvant treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Complete mesorectal excision was achieved in 617 of 671 patients (92.0%), without showing a difference between the PME and TME groups. Local recurrence rate (5.3% vs. 4.3%, P>0.999) and systemic recurrence rate (8.5% vs. 16.0%, P=0.181) also did not differ between the 2 groups, in patients with middle and upper rectal cancer. The 5-year disease-free survival (81.4% vs. 74.0%, P=0.537) and overall survival (88.0% vs. 81.1%, P=0.847) also did not differ between the PME and TME groups, confined to middle rectal cancer. Moreover, 5-year recurrence and survival rates were not affected by distal resection margins of 2 cm (P=0.112) to 4 cm (P>0.999), regardless of pathological stages. Postoperative complication rate was higher in the TME than in the PME group (21.4% vs. 14.5%, P=0.027). Incontinence was independently associated with TME (odds ratio [OR], 2.009; 95% confidence interval, 1.015-3.975; P=0.045), along with older age (OR, 4.366, P<0.001) and prolonged operation time (OR, 2.196; P=0.500).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PME can be primarily recommended for patients with middle rectal cancer with lower margin of >5 cm from the anal verge.</p>","PeriodicalId":8267,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Coloproctology","volume":" ","pages":"253-267"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11362759/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Partial mesorectal excision can be a primary option for middle rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched retrospective analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Ee Jin Kim, Chan Wook Kim, Jong Lyul Lee, Yong Sik Yoon, In Ja Park, Seok-Byung Lim, Chang Sik Yu, Jin Cheon Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.3393/ac.2022.00689.0098\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Although partial mesorectal excision (PME) and total mesorectal excision (TME) is primarily indicated for the upper and lower rectal cancer, respectively, few studies have evaluated whether PME or TME is more optimal for middle rectal cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study included 671 patients with middle and upper rectal cancer who underwent robot-assisted PME or TME. The 2 groups were optimized by propensity score matching of sex, age, clinical stage, tumor location, and neoadjuvant treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Complete mesorectal excision was achieved in 617 of 671 patients (92.0%), without showing a difference between the PME and TME groups. Local recurrence rate (5.3% vs. 4.3%, P>0.999) and systemic recurrence rate (8.5% vs. 16.0%, P=0.181) also did not differ between the 2 groups, in patients with middle and upper rectal cancer. The 5-year disease-free survival (81.4% vs. 74.0%, P=0.537) and overall survival (88.0% vs. 81.1%, P=0.847) also did not differ between the PME and TME groups, confined to middle rectal cancer. Moreover, 5-year recurrence and survival rates were not affected by distal resection margins of 2 cm (P=0.112) to 4 cm (P>0.999), regardless of pathological stages. Postoperative complication rate was higher in the TME than in the PME group (21.4% vs. 14.5%, P=0.027). Incontinence was independently associated with TME (odds ratio [OR], 2.009; 95% confidence interval, 1.015-3.975; P=0.045), along with older age (OR, 4.366, P<0.001) and prolonged operation time (OR, 2.196; P=0.500).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PME can be primarily recommended for patients with middle rectal cancer with lower margin of >5 cm from the anal verge.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8267,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Coloproctology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"253-267\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11362759/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Coloproctology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2022.00689.0098\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/3/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Coloproctology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2022.00689.0098","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:尽管部分直肠系膜切除术(PME)和全直肠系膜切除术(TME)主要分别适用于上部和下部直肠癌,但很少有研究评估PME或TME是否更适合中段直肠癌:这项研究纳入了671名接受机器人辅助PME或TME手术的中上段直肠癌患者。通过对性别、年龄、临床分期、肿瘤位置和新辅助治疗进行倾向评分匹配,对两组患者进行了优化:结果:671例患者中有617例(92.0%)实现了直肠系膜完全切除,PME组和TME组之间无差异。在中上段直肠癌患者中,两组的局部复发率(5.3% 对 4.3%,P>0.999)和全身复发率(8.5% 对 16.0%,P=0.181)也没有差异。中段直肠癌患者的5年无病生存率(81.4% vs. 74.0%,P=0.537)和总生存率(88.0% vs. 81.1%,P=0.847)在PME组和TME组之间也没有差异。此外,无论病理分期如何,2厘米(P=0.112)至4厘米(P>0.999)的远端切除边缘均不影响5年复发率和生存率。TME组的术后并发症发生率高于PME组(21.4%对14.5%,P=0.027)。尿失禁与TME(几率比[OR],2.009;95%置信区间,1.015-3.975;P=0.045)和年龄(OR,4.366,PC结论)独立相关:中段直肠癌患者的下缘距肛门边缘>5厘米时,主要推荐进行PME治疗。
Partial mesorectal excision can be a primary option for middle rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched retrospective analysis.
Purpose: Although partial mesorectal excision (PME) and total mesorectal excision (TME) is primarily indicated for the upper and lower rectal cancer, respectively, few studies have evaluated whether PME or TME is more optimal for middle rectal cancer.
Methods: This study included 671 patients with middle and upper rectal cancer who underwent robot-assisted PME or TME. The 2 groups were optimized by propensity score matching of sex, age, clinical stage, tumor location, and neoadjuvant treatment.
Results: Complete mesorectal excision was achieved in 617 of 671 patients (92.0%), without showing a difference between the PME and TME groups. Local recurrence rate (5.3% vs. 4.3%, P>0.999) and systemic recurrence rate (8.5% vs. 16.0%, P=0.181) also did not differ between the 2 groups, in patients with middle and upper rectal cancer. The 5-year disease-free survival (81.4% vs. 74.0%, P=0.537) and overall survival (88.0% vs. 81.1%, P=0.847) also did not differ between the PME and TME groups, confined to middle rectal cancer. Moreover, 5-year recurrence and survival rates were not affected by distal resection margins of 2 cm (P=0.112) to 4 cm (P>0.999), regardless of pathological stages. Postoperative complication rate was higher in the TME than in the PME group (21.4% vs. 14.5%, P=0.027). Incontinence was independently associated with TME (odds ratio [OR], 2.009; 95% confidence interval, 1.015-3.975; P=0.045), along with older age (OR, 4.366, P<0.001) and prolonged operation time (OR, 2.196; P=0.500).
Conclusion: PME can be primarily recommended for patients with middle rectal cancer with lower margin of >5 cm from the anal verge.