1 / 92

Rectal Cancer - 2005 M62 Coloproctolgy course, Huddersfield

Rectal Cancer - 2005 M62 Coloproctolgy course, Huddersfield. Lars Påhlman Dept Surgery, Colorectal unit University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden. Why focus on surgery ? The only curative option Big variation among surgeons Training mandatory

paula-harris
Download Presentation

Rectal Cancer - 2005 M62 Coloproctolgy course, Huddersfield

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Rectal Cancer - 2005M62 Coloproctolgy course, Huddersfield Lars Påhlman Dept Surgery, Colorectal unit University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden

  2. Why focus on surgery ? The only curative option Big variation among surgeons Training mandatory Surgical strategy important Rectal Cancer - focus on surgery

  3. Two main options Local excision Abdominal resection Rectal cancer surgery

  4. TEM surgery - adenomas Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery • Full thickness excision • Up to 20 cm • Perfect view

  5. Local excision T 1 tumours ‘Early’ T 2 tumours ‘Any T’ fragile patients TEM - technique crucial Rectal cancer surgery

  6. Local tumour control Mesorectum Lateral spread Intramural spread Implantation metastases Nodal involvement Rectal cancer surgery

  7. Standard surgery TME the gold standard Rectal Cancer - focus on surgery

  8. Lateral resection margins Local recurrences / number of patients Pos. lat. marg. Neg. lat. marg. 11/13 (85%) 1/38 (3%) p < 0.001 Quirke et al. Lancet, nov 1; 1986 Rectal cancer surgery

  9. Intramural spread Hardly ever extend more than 0.5 cm Grinell R. Surg Gynecol Obstet 99: 421-430; 1954 Rectal cancer surgery

  10. 5 years follow-up (1995 - 97) Local recurrence rate Irrigation Ant. Resection Hartmann Yes 96 / 1464 7 % 8 / 71 11 % No 44 / 398 11 % 11 / 115 10 % Unknown 7 / 65 11 % 1 / 17 6 % p < 0.001n.s. Swedish Rectal Cancer Register

  11. Nodal involvement Proximal Lateral Distal Rectal cancer surgery

  12. Proximal lymph node clearance High-tie No effect on survival + nodes = disseminated disease Grinell; Surg Gynecol Obstet 120:1031, 1965 Pezim and Nicholls; Ann Surg 200:729, 1984 Rectal cancer surgery

  13. Lateral lymph node clearance Super radical surgery Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy Retro-peritoneal clearance Extra mesenteric clearance Hojo et al; Dis Colon Rectum 32:307, 1989 Rectal cancer surgery

  14. Lateral lymph node clearance Super radical surgery Positive nodes indicates disseminated disease Hojo et al; Dis Colon Rectum 32:307, 1989 Rectal cancer surgery

  15. Lateral lymph node clearance Morbidity Impotence > 60 % Voiding problem > 40 % Prolongs surgery Rectal cancer surgery

  16. Lateral lymph node clearance The pivotal trial ! TME + lateral LN clearance vs Neo - adj. irrad. + TME Rectal cancer surgery

  17. Rectal cancer surgery Distal lymph node clearance Total mesorectal excision How important ? Heald et al; Br J Surg 1982

  18. Distal lymph node clearance Total Mesorectal Excision In all cases ? What is the upper limit ? Morbidity increased ! Rectal cancer surgery

  19. Low rectal cancers Abdominoperineal Excision Very difficult surgery ! Important to have correct strategy Avoid ‘coning’ ! Start early from below ! Rectal cancer surgery

  20. Conclusion Well - trained surgeons ! TME gold standard ! Lateral lymph nodes - radiotherapy APR very tricky ! Cone - effect must be avoided Rectal cancer surgery

  21. Role of radiotherapy in rectal cancer • To lower local failure rates and improve survival in resectable cancers • To allow surgery in non-resectable cancers • To facilitate a sphincter-preserving procedure in low-lying cancers ? • To cure patients without (major) surgery

  22. Resectable Rectal Cancer

  23. Meta-analysis rectal cancer radiotherapy 22 trials, 8 507 patients Reduction in overall colorectal isolated mortality cancer deaths local recurr. Preoperative: BED <20 Gy ns ns ns 20 - 30 Gy ns ns 24 ± 15 30 - 37.5 Gy 10±5* 22 ± 5**** 57 ± 7**** Postoperative: BED 35 - 44 Gy ns 9 ± 7 (ns) 33 ± 11**

  24. Radiotherapy in resectable cancer • Conclusions from the meta-analysis • Radiotherapy works (with standard surgery) • lowers local failure rates • improves survival • Dose-response relationship (for preop RT) • low doses ineffective • Preop RT is more dose-efficient than postop seen in the Uppsala-trial comparing pre- and postop RT

  25. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy will always reduce the local recurrence rate with  50 % Irrespective of type of surgery Rectal Cancer Surgery

  26. Type of surgery Local recurrence RT - RT + ‘sloppy’ 30 % 10 % TME 13 % 6 % Rectal Cancer Surgery

  27. Radiation schedule Conventional fractionation: 45 - 50 Gy in 4 - 5 weeks Accelerated fractionation: 25 Gy in 1 week Adjuvant radiotherapy

  28. Ongoing trial in Sweden 3-armed trial 25 Gy / 1 week immediate surgery 25 Gy / 1 week delayed surgery 50 Gy / 5 weeks delayed surgery Adjuvant radiotherapy

  29. Dutch trial - Local recurrencePatients with R 0 (n=1789) TME alone 5.8% vs 11.4% p < 0.001 RT + TME

  30. Overall Survivaleligible patients (n=1809) TME alone 64.2% vs 63.4% p = 0.87 RT + TME

  31. Cancer specific survivaleligible patients (n=1809) 76.1% vs 73.0% p = 0.18

  32. Dutch trial - Local recurrence rateLevel from the anal verge 0 - 5 cm 6 - 10 cm 11 - 15 cm 10.5% vs 11.9% p = 0.53

  33. Local recurrence rate (min. 5 years) (patients operated on for cure) Preop. irrad . Surgery alone p-value Ant. res. 9 % (18 / 206) 21 % (41 / 194) < 0.001 Abd. per. 9 % (22 / 243) 25 % (65 / 256) < 0.001 Other op. 33 % ( 2 / 6 ) 38 % ( 3 / 8 ) SWEDISH RECTAL CANCER TRIAL

  34. Trial / level Local recurrence RT - RT + p value SRCT < 5 cm 27 % 10 % 0.003 TME < 5 cm 11 % 12 %0.53 SRCT 6 - 10 cm 26 % 9 % < 0.001 TME 6 - 10 cm 15 % 4 % < 0.001 SRCT > 10 cm 12 % 8 % 0.3 TME > 10 cm 6 % 4 % 0.15 Local recurrence rate

  35. Data report 1995 - 2004  15,000 patients ( 1,500 yearly) Base - line data Trends in treatment 5-year oncological data Swedish Rectal Cancer Register

  36. Local recurrence % (1995 - 98) All patients R 0 surgery

  37. Local recurrence % (1995 - 1997) 0 - 6 cm 7 - 15 cm

  38. Rectal cancer treatment - what have we learned ? • Local failures can more or less be eliminated; < 3 % (not only  10 %) • Survival slightly improved about 10 % with some morbidity (TME + RT) • The challenge is to preoperatively find those who need more than surgery and predict where the tumour cells are (to use radio- therapy on an individual level)

  39. Preoperative chemo-radiotherapyin rectal cancer Is RT/CT superior to RT in resectable rectal cancer ? Probably, but the evidence is low Two ! trials are ongoing (EORTC) (France)

  40. Non - Resectable Rectal Cancer

  41. Non-resectable Must be identified preop. Malpractice if not treated with preoperative irradiation Rectal cancer

  42. Non-resectable rectal cancer • No uniform definition (T4’s growing into a another often non-resectable organ/tissue) • 10 - 15%, half without distant metastases • Causes much suffering • Surgery alone likely cures very few • Preop. prolonged radio(chemo)therapy is mandatory

More Related