Decision of Salvage Treatment after Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery: Clinical Experience on 36 Cases of Rectal Cancer.
- Author:
Suk Hee SHIN
1
;
Sang Ah HAN
;
Chi Min PARK
;
Seong Hyeon YUN
;
Woo Yong LEE
;
Dong Wook CHOI
;
Hokyung CHUN
Author Information
1. Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkawan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. hkchun@smc.samsung.co.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Transanal endoscopic microsurgery;
Rectal cancer;
Local recurrence;
Local excision
- MeSH:
Adenocarcinoma, Mucinous;
Disulfiram;
Humans;
Microsurgery*;
Neoplasm Metastasis;
Rectal Neoplasms*;
Recurrence
- From:Journal of the Korean Society of Coloproctology
2005;21(6):406-412
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Local excision, including transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), has become an alternative to the classic radical operation for early rectal cancer. However, radical resection for rectal cancer is necessary for advanced tumor, poor differentiation, a narrow resection margin, and positive lymphovascular invasion. This study presents the factors related to recurrence in patients who required secondary radical surgery after TEM, but did not undergo the operation. METHODS: From November 1994 to December 2004, 167 patients underwent TEM for rectal cancer. Thirty-six of those patients were included in this study. Inclusion criteria were poor differentiation, a mucinous carcinoma, invasion to a proper muscle layer, lymphovascular invasion, and a positive resection margin. RESULTS: Twelve of the 36 patients underwent a secondary radical operation, but 24 of them did not due to poor general condition or refusal. One of 12 patients (8.3%) who underwent a secondary radical operation had a systemic recurrence. Five of 24 patients (20.8%) who did not receive surgery had recurrences; 3 of 5 were local recurrence, and the others were distant metastases. Among the 24 patients who did not undergo a secondary radical operation, there were no recurrences in 2 cases of poor differentiation or mucinous carcinoma and in 2 cases of positive resection margin. There were 2 cases of recurrences in the 7 patients (25.0%) who had lymphovascular invasion, 1 case in the 1 patient (100%) who had a T3 lesion, 3 cases in the 17 patients (12.5%) who had T2 lesions. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk patients, TEM followed by radical surgery is most beneficial in preventing local recurrence. A radical operation is strongly recommended especially if pathologic results after TEM shows T3 lesions or lymphovascular invasion.
