Advertisement

Complications After Extended Radical Resections for Locally Advanced and Recurrent Pelvic Malignancies: A 25-Year Experience

  • Oliver PeacockEmail author
  • Peadar S. Waters
  • Joseph C. Kong
  • Satish K. Warrier
  • Chris Wakeman
  • Tim Eglinton
  • Alexander G. Heriot
  • Frank A. Frizelle
  • Jacob J. McCormick
Colorectal Cancer

Abstract

Background

The oncological role of pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic malignancies arising from the anorectum, gynaecological, or urological systems is now well-established. Despite this, the surgical community has been slow to accept pelvic exenteration, undoubtedly due to concerns about high morbidity and mortality rates. This study assessed the general major complications and predictors of morbidity following extended radical resections for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic malignancies.

Methods

Data were collected from prospective databases at two high-volume institutions specialising in beyond TME surgery for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic malignancies between 1990 and 2015. The primary outcome measures were major complications (Clavien-Dindo 3 or above) and predictors for morbidity.

Results

A total of 646 consecutive patients required extended surgery for local advanced pelvic malignancies. The median age was 63 (range 19–89) years, and the majority were female (371; 57.4%). One or more major complications were observed in 106 patients (16.4%). The most common major complications were intra-abdominal collection (43.7%; n = 59/135) and wound infection (14.1%; n = 19/135). The overall inpatient mortality rate was 0.46% (n = 3/646). Independent predictors for major morbidity following surgery for locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies were squamous cell carcinoma of anus, sacrectomy, and blood transfusion requirement.

Conclusions

This series adds increasing evidence that good outcomes can be achieved for extended radical resections in locally advanced and recurrent pelvic malignancies. A coordinated approach in specialist centres for beyond TME surgery demonstrates that this is a safe and feasible procedure, offering low major complication rates.

Notes

Acknowledgement

None.

Disclosures

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Beyond TME Consensus. Consensus statement on the multidisciplinary management of patients with recurrent and primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes. Br J Surg. 2013;100:1009-14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harris CA, Solomon MJ, Heriot AG, et al. The outcomes and patterns of treatment failure after surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2016;264:323–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pawlik TM, Skibber JM, Rodriguez-Bigas MA. Pelvic exenteration for advanced pelvic malignancies. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13:612–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhangu A, Ali SM, Darzi A, Brown G, Tekkis P. Meta-analysis of survival based on resection margin status following surgery for recurrent rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14:1457–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    PelvEx Collaboration. Surgical and survival outcomes following pelvic exenteration for locally advanced primary rectal cancer: results from an international collaboration. Ann Surg. 2019;269:315–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brunschwig A. Complete excision of pelvic viscera for advanced carcinoma; a one-stage abdominoperineal operation with end colostomy and bilateral ureteral implantation into the colon above the colostomy. Cancer. 1948;1:177–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brown KGM, Solomon MJ. Progress and future direction in the management of advanced colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2018;105:615–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brown KGM, Solomon MJ, Koh CE. Pelvic exenteration surgery: the evolution of radical surgical techniques for advanced and recurrent pelvic malignancy. Dis Colon Rectum. 2017;60:745–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Quyn AJ, Austin KK, Young JM, et al. Outcomes of pelvic exenteration for locally advanced primary rectal cancer: overall survival and quality of life. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42:823–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harji DP, Griffiths B, McArthur DR, Sagar PM. Current UK management of locally recurrent rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14:1479–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heriot AG, Byrne CM, Lee P, et al. Extended radical resection: the choice for locally recurrent rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51:284–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Berrios-Torres SI, Umscheid CA, Bratzler DW, et al. Centers for disease control and prevention guideline for the prevention of surgical site infection, 2017. JAMA Surg. 2017;152:784–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rahbari NN, Weitz J, Hohenberger W, et al. Definition and grading of anastomotic leakage following anterior resection of the rectum: a proposal by the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer. Surgery. 2010;147:339–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wagenlehner FM, Pilatz A, Naber KG, Weidner W. Therapeutic challenges of urosepsis. Eur J Clin Invest. 2008;38 Suppl 2:45–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kreiner L (2018) Intra-abdominal collection: BMJ. Available at: https://bestpractice.bmj.com/topics/en-gb/996. Accessed 16 March 2019.
  17. 17.
    PelvEx Collaboration. Factors affecting outcomes following pelvic exenteration for locally recurrent rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2018;105:650–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Diver EJ, Rauh-Hain JA, Del Carmen MG. Total pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancies. Int J Surg Oncol. 2012;2012:693535.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yang TX, Morris DL, Chua TC. Pelvic exenteration for rectal cancer: a systematic review. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:519–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tortorella L, Casarin J, Mara KC, et al. Prediction of short-term surgical complications in women undergoing pelvic exenteration for gynecological malignancies. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;152:151–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Juan P. Cata VG (2012). Blood loss and massive transfusion in patients undergoing major oncological surgery: what do we know? Available at: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2012/918938/. Accessed 16 March 2019.
  22. 22.
    Vivacqua A, Koch CG, Yousuf AM, et al. Morbidity of bleeding after cardiac surgery: is it blood transfusion, reoperation for bleeding, or both? Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;91:1780–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Acheson AG, Brookes MJ, Spahn DR. Effects of allogeneic red blood cell transfusions on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2012;256:235–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Isbister JP, Shander A, Spahn DR, Erhard J, Farmer SL, Hofmann A. Adverse blood transfusion outcomes: establishing causation. Transfus Med Rev. 2011;25:89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Spahn DR, Shander A, Hofmann A, Berman MF. More on transfusion and adverse outcome: it’s time to change. Anesthesiology. 2011;114:234–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shander A, Fink A, Javidroozi M, et al. Appropriateness of allogeneic red blood cell transfusion: the international consensus conference on transfusion outcomes. Transfus Med Rev. 2011;25:232–46 e53.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Milne T, Solomon MJ, Lee P, et al. Sacral resection with pelvic exenteration for advanced primary and recurrent pelvic cancer: a single-institution experience of 100 sacrectomies. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57:1153–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lau YC, Jongerius K, Wakeman C, et al. Influence of the level of sacrectomy on survival in patients with locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2019;106:484–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Alamri Y, Buchwald P, Dixon L, et al. Salvage surgery in patients with recurrent or residual squamous cell carcinoma of the anus. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42:1687–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wright JL, Gollub MJ, Weiser MR, et al. Surgery and high-dose-rate intraoperative radiation therapy for recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the anal canal. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:1090–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schiller DE, Cummings BJ, Rai S, et al. Outcomes of salvage surgery for squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:2780–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tan KK, Pal S, Lee PJ, Rodwell L, Solomon MJ. Pelvic exenteration for recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the pelvic organs arising from the cloaca–a single institution’s experience over 16 years. Colorectal Dis. 2013;15:1227–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mullen JT, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Chang GJ, et al. Results of surgical salvage after failed chemoradiation therapy for epidermoid carcinoma of the anal canal. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:478–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oliver Peacock
    • 1
    Email author
  • Peadar S. Waters
    • 1
  • Joseph C. Kong
    • 1
  • Satish K. Warrier
    • 1
  • Chris Wakeman
    • 2
  • Tim Eglinton
    • 2
  • Alexander G. Heriot
    • 1
  • Frank A. Frizelle
    • 2
  • Jacob J. McCormick
    • 1
  1. 1.Colorectal Surgery UnitPeter MacCallum Cancer CentreMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Colorectal Surgery UnitChristchurch HospitalChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations