Extralevator with vs nonextralevator abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer: the RELAPe randomized controlled trial

被引:22
|
作者
Bianco, F. [1 ,2 ]
Romano, G. [2 ]
Tsarkov, P. [3 ]
Stanojevic, G. [4 ]
Shroyer, K. [5 ]
Giuratrabocchetta, S. [1 ]
Bergamaschi, R. [1 ]
机构
[1] SUNY Stony Brook, Div Colorectal Surg, Stony Brook, NY USA
[2] Natl Canc Inst, Dept Colorectal Surg, Naples, Italy
[3] Sechenov First Moscow State Med Univ, Dept Colorectal Surg, Moscow, Russia
[4] Sch Univ Nis, Dept Colorectal Surg, Nish, Serbia
[5] SUNY Stony Brook, Dept Pathol, Stony Brook, NY USA
关键词
Randomized controlled trial; circumferential resection margin; extralevator abdominoperineal excision; TOTAL MESORECTAL EXCISION; FLAP RECONSTRUCTION; RESECTION; OUTCOMES; STANDARD; INFECTIONS; CARCINOMA; SCIENCE; SURGERY; CARE;
D O I
10.1111/codi.13436
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Aim A randomized controlled trial was conducted to test the null hypothesis that there is no difference in circumferential resection margin (CRM) between extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) and non-ELAPE for rectal cancer. Method This was a multicentre, randomized controlled trial registered as NCT01702116. Patients with rectal cancer involving the external anal sphincter were randomized to ELAPE or non-ELAPE following neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Randomization was performed according to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines. The primary end-point was CRM (in mm), defined as the shortest distance between the tumour and the cut edge of the specimen. Pathologists and centralized pathology were blinded to the patients' study arm. Interrater reliability (IRR) was assessed using Kendall's coefficient. Intra-operative perforation (IOP) was any rectal defect determined at pathology. Complications were classified using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Participating surgeons were retrained and credentialed. A sample size calculation showed that 34 subjects would provide sufficient power to reject the null hypothesis. Results Thirty-four patients underwent the allocated intervention. Seventeen patients treated with ELAPE were comparable with 17 patients treated with non-ELAPE regarding age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) class and pre-existing comorbidities. CRM depth (7.14 +/- 5.76 mm vs 2.98 +/- 3.28 mm, P = 0.016) and involvement rates (5.8% vs 41.0%, P = 0.04) were significantly increased in patients treated with ELAPE. The IRR for CRM was 0.78. There were no significant differences in IOP (5.8% vs 11.7%, P = 0.77) and complication rates (29% vs 29%, P = 0.97). Conclusions ELAPE was associated with statistically improved CRM with no difference in IOP and complication rates compared with non-ELAPE for rectal cancer involving the external anal sphincter.
引用
收藏
页码:148 / 157
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] EXTRALEVATOR WITH VERTICAL RECTUS ABDOMINIS MYOCUTANEOUS FLAP VS. NONEXTRALEVATOR ABDOMINOPERINEAL EXCISION FOR RECTAL CANCER: THE RELAPE TRIAL.
    Bianco, F.
    Giovanni, R.
    Tsarkov, P.
    Stanojevic, G.
    Giuratrabocchetta, S.
    Shroyer, K.
    Bergamaschi, R.
    DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 2016, 59 (05) : E250 - E251
  • [2] Extralevator versus standard abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer
    S. K. Perdawood
    T. Lund
    Techniques in Coloproctology, 2015, 19 : 145 - 152
  • [3] Extralevator versus standard abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer
    Perdawood, S. K.
    Lund, T.
    TECHNIQUES IN COLOPROCTOLOGY, 2015, 19 (03) : 145 - 152
  • [4] Extralevator abdominoperineal excision versus abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis
    Qi Xin-Yu
    Cui Ming
    Liu Mao-Xing
    Xu Kai
    Tan Fei
    Yao Zhen-Dan
    Zhang Nan
    Yang Hong
    Zhang Cheng-Hai
    Xing Jia-Di
    Su Xiang-Qian
    中华医学杂志英文版, 2019, 132 (20) : 2446 - 2456
  • [5] Extralevator abdominoperineal excision versus abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis
    Qi, Xin-Yu
    Cui, Ming
    Liu, Mao-Xing
    Xu, Kai
    Tan, Fei
    Yao, Zhen-Dan
    Zhang, Nan
    Yang, Hong
    Zhang, Cheng-Hai
    Xing, Jia-Di
    Su, Xiang-Qian
    CHINESE MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2019, 132 (20) : 2446 - 2456
  • [6] Multicentre experience with extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer
    West, N. P.
    Anderin, C.
    Smith, K. J. E.
    Holm, T.
    Quirke, P.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2010, 97 (04) : 588 - 599
  • [7] A pictorial description of extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer
    Shihab, O. C.
    Heald, R. J.
    Holm, T.
    How, P. D.
    Brown, G.
    Quirke, P.
    Moran, B. J.
    COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2012, 14 (10) : E655 - E660
  • [8] Extralevator abdominoperineal excision for advanced low rectal cancer: Where to go
    Yu Tao
    Jia-Gang Han
    Zhen-Jun Wang
    World Journal of Gastroenterology, 2020, (22) : 3012 - 3023
  • [9] Application of modified extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer resection
    Zhang, Xiang
    Li, Xin
    Qin, Qingdi
    Wang, Yanlei
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2024, 38 (10): : 6177 - 6183
  • [10] A PROSPECTIVE, MULTICENTER CLINICAL TRIAL OF EXTRALEVATOR ABDOMINOPERINEAL EXCISION FOR LOCALLY ADVANCED LOW RECTAL CANCER
    Wang, Z.
    Han, J.
    Qian, Q.
    Dai, Y.
    Zhang, Z.
    Yang, J.
    Li, F.
    Li, X.
    Gao, Z.
    Du, Y.
    DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 2014, 57 (05) : E252 - E253