Marr Roger, Birbeck Kevin, Garvican James, Macklin Christopher P, Tiffin Nicholas J, Parsons Wendy J, Dixon Michael F, Mapstone Nicholas P, Sebag-Montefiore David, Scott Nigel, Johnston David, Sagar Peter, Finan Paul, Quirke Philip
Department of Histopathology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Ann Surg. 2005 Jul;242(1):74-82. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000167926.60908.15.
Examine the cause of local recurrence (LR) and patient survival (S) following abdominoperineal resection (APR) and anterior resection (AR) for rectal carcinoma and the effect of introduction of total mesorectal excision (TME) on APR.
A total of 608 patients underwent surgery for rectal cancer in Leeds from 1986 to 1997. CRM status and follow-up data of local recurrence and patient survival were available for 561 patients, of whom 190 underwent APR (32.4%) and 371 AR (63.3%). Also, a retrospective study of pathologic images of 93 specimens of rectal carcinoma.
Patients undergoing APR had a higher LR and lower survival (LR, 22.3% versus 13.5%, P = 0.002; S, 52.3% versus 65.8%, P = 0.003) than AR. LR free rates were lower in the APR group and cancer specific survival was lowered (LR, 66% versus 77%, log rank P = 0.03; S, 48% versus 59%, log rank P = 0.02). Morphometry: total area of surgically removed tissue outside the muscularis propria was smaller in APR specimens (n = 27) than AR specimens (n = 66) (P < 0.0001). Linear dimensions of transverse slices of tissue containing tumor, median posterior, and lateral measurements were smaller (P < 0.05) in the APR than the AR group. APR specimens with histologically positive CRM (n = 11) had a smaller area of tissue outside the muscularis propria (P = 0.04) compared with the CRM-negative APR specimens (n = 16). Incidence of CRM involvement in the APR group (41%) was higher than in the AR group (12%) (P = 0.006) in the 1997 to 2000 cohort. Similar results (36% and 22%) were found in the 1986 to 1997 cohort (P = 0.002).
Patients treated by APR have a higher rate of CRM involvement, a higher LR, and poorer prognosis than AR. The frequency of CRM involvement for APR has not diminished with TME. CRM involvement in the APR specimens is related to the removal of less tissue at the level of the tumor in an APR. Where possible, a more radical operation should be considered for all low rectal cancer tumors.
研究直肠癌经腹会阴联合切除术(APR)和前切除术(AR)后局部复发(LR)的原因、患者生存率(S),以及全直肠系膜切除术(TME)应用于APR的效果。
1986年至1997年期间,共有608例患者在利兹接受了直肠癌手术。561例患者有环周切缘(CRM)状态以及局部复发和患者生存的随访数据,其中190例行APR(32.4%),371例行AR(63.3%)。此外,对93例直肠癌标本的病理图像进行回顾性研究。
与AR相比,接受APR的患者局部复发率更高,生存率更低(局部复发率:22.3%对13.5%,P = 0.002;生存率:52.3%对65.8%,P = 0.003)。APR组的无局部复发率较低,癌症特异性生存率也较低(局部复发率:66%对77%,对数秩检验P = 0.03;生存率:48%对59%,对数秩检验P = 0.02)。形态学测量:APR标本(n = 27)中固有肌层外手术切除组织的总面积小于AR标本(n = 66)(P < 0.0001)。APR组中含肿瘤组织横切片的线性尺寸、中位后方和外侧测量值均小于AR组(P < 0.05)。组织学CRM阳性的APR标本(n = 11)与CRM阴性的APR标本(n = 16)相比,固有肌层外组织面积更小(P = 0.04)。在1997年至2000年队列中,APR组CRM受累发生率(41%)高于AR组(1