Long-term outcomes and failure patterns after laparoscopic intersphincteric resection in ultralow rectal cancers.

BACKGROUND

Intersphincteric resection (ISR), the ultimate anus-preserving technique for ultralow rectal cancers, is an alternative to abdominoperineal resection (APR). The failure patterns and risk factors for local recurrence and distant metastasis remain controversial and require further investigation.

AIM

To investigate the long-term outcomes and failure patterns after laparoscopic ISR in ultralow rectal cancers.

METHODS

Patients who underwent laparoscopic ISR (LsISR) at Peking University First Hospital between January 2012 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Correlation analysis was performed using the Chi-square or Pearson's correlation test. Prognostic factors for overall survival (OS), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) were analyzed using Cox regression.

RESULTS

We enrolled 368 patients with a median follow-up of 42 mo. Local recurrence and distant metastasis occurred in 13 (3.5%) and 42 (11.4%) cases, respectively. The 3-year OS, LRFS, and DMFS rates were 91.3%, 97.1%, and 90.1%, respectively. Multivariate analyses revealed that LRFS was associated with positive lymph node status [hazard ratio (HR) = 5.411, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.413-20.722, 0.014] and poor differentiation (HR = 3.739, 95%CI: 1.171-11.937, = 0.026), whereas the independent prognostic factors for DMFS were positive lymph node status (HR = 2.445, 95%CI: 1.272-4.698, = 0.007) and (y)pT3 stage (HR = 2.741, 95%CI: 1.225-6.137, = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed the oncological safety of LsISR for ultralow rectal cancer. Poor differentiation, (y)pT3 stage, and lymph node metastasis are independent risk factors for treatment failure after LsISR, and thus patients with these factors should be carefully managed with optimal neoadjuvant therapy, and for patients with a high risk of local recurrence (N + or poor differentiation), extended radical resection (such as APR instead of ISR) may be more effective.