Comparison of clinical efficacy among different surgical methods for presacral recurrent rectal cancer
10.3760/cma.j.cn.441530-20200210-00045
- VernacularTitle:直肠癌骶前复发不同手术方式的临床疗效比较
- Author:
Peng GUO
1
;
Chang WANG
;
Xiaodong YANG
;
Qiwei XIE
;
Mujun YIN
;
Kewei JIANG
;
Bin LIANG
;
Zhanlong SHEN
;
Kai SHEN
;
Yi YANG
;
Wei GUO
;
Yingjiang YE
Author Information
1. 北京大学人民医院胃肠外科 北京大学人民医院外科肿瘤实验室 北京市结直肠癌诊疗研究重点实验室 100044
- Keywords:
Rectal neoplasms;
Presacral recurrence;
Sacrectomy;
Abdominosacral resection;
Clinical efficacy;
Prognosis
- From:
Chinese Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
2020;23(5):466-471
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the efficacy and prognosis of three surgical methods for presacral recurrent rectal cancer (PRRC).Methods:A retrospective cohort study was carried out. Case inclusion criteria: (1) primary rectal cancer without distant metastasis and undergoing radical surgery; (2) patients undergoing radical surgery after the diagnosis of PRRC; (3) complete inpatient, outpatient and follow-up data. Clinical data of 47 patients meeting the above criteria who underwent operation at the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Peking University People's Hospital from January 2008 to December 2017 were reviewed and analyzed retrospectively. Of the 47 patients, 31 were male and 16 were female; the mean age was 57 years old; 9 (19.1%) were low differentiation or signet ring cell carcinoma, 38 (80.9%) were medium differentiation; 19 (40.4%) received neoadjuvant therapy. According to operative procedure, 22 patients were in the abdominal/abdominoperineal resection group, 15 in the sacrectomy group and 10 in the abdominosacral resection group. The operative data, postoperative data and prognosis were compared among the three groups. Survival curve was conducted using the Kaplan-Meier method, and log-rank test was used to compare survival difference among three groups.Results:There were no significant differences in baseline data among three groups (all P>0.05). All the 47 patients completed the radical resection successfully. The mean operation time was (4.7±2.1) hours, the median intraoperative blood loss was 600 ml, and the median postoperative hospitalization time was 17 days. Fifteen cases (31.9%) had perioperative complications, of which 3 cases were grade III-IV. There was no perioperative death. The mean operative time was (7.4±1.6) hours in the abdominosacral resection group, (4.9±1.6) hours in the abdominal/abdominoperineal resection group, and (3.0±1.1) hours in the sacroectomy group, with a significant difference ( F=25.071, P<0.001). There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospitalization days and perioperative complications among the three groups (all P>0.05). The median follow-up period of all the patients was 24 months, 12 cases (25.5%) developed postoperative dysfunction. The incidence of postoperative dysfunction in the abdominosacral resection group was 5/10, which was higher than 4/15 in the sacrectomy group and 3/22 (13.6%) in the abdominoperineal resection group with statistically significant difference (χ 2=9.307, P=0.010). The 1-year and 3-year overall survival rates were 86.1% and 40.2% respectively. The 1-year overall survival rates were 86.0%, 86.7% and 83.3%, and the 3-year overall survival rates were 33.2%, 40.0% and 62.5% in the abdominal/abdominoperineal resection group, sacrectomy group and abdominosacral resection group, respectively, whose difference was not statistically significant (χ 2=0.222, P=0.895). Conclusions:Abdominal/abdominoperineal resection, sacrectomy and abdominosacral resection are all effective for PRRC. Intraoperative function protection should be concerned for patients undergoing abdominosacral resection.
