You could be reading the full-text of this article now if you...

If you have access to this article through your institution,
you can view this article in

Pelvic Exenteration for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review

Yang, Timothy X. M.B.B.S. (Hons.)1; Morris, David L. M.D., Ph.D.1,2; Chua, Terence C. B.Sc.Med. (Hons.), M.B.B.S., M.R.C.S. (Edinb.), Ph.D.1–3

Diseases of the Colon & Rectum:
doi: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e31827a7868
Current Status
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration is a potentially curative treatment for locally advanced primary or recurrent rectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review examines the current evidence regarding clinical and oncological outcomes in patients with locally advanced primary and recurrent rectal cancer who undergo pelvic exenteration.

DATA SOURCES: A literature search of PubMed, Medline, and the Cochrane library was undertaken, and studies published in the English language from January 2000 to August 2012 were identified.

STUDY SELECTION: Prospective and retrospective studies that report outcomes of pelvic exenteration for primary advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer with or without subgroup evaluation were included for examination.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Oncological outcomes included 5-year survival, median survival, and local recurrence rates. Clinical outcomes included complication rates and perioperative mortality rates.

RESULTS: A total of 23 studies with 1049 patients were reviewed. The complication rates ranged from 37% to 100% (median, 57%) and the perioperative mortality rate ranged from 0% to 25% (median, 2.2%). The rate of local recurrence ranged from 4.8% to 61% (median, 22%). The median survival for primary advanced rectal cancers was 14 to 93 months (median, 35.5 months) and 8 to 38 months (median, 24 months) for locally recurrent rectal cancer.

LIMITATIONS: Our review was limited by the small sample sizes from single-institutional studies reporting outcomes over long periods of time with heterogeneity in both the disease and treatments reported.

CONCLUSIONS: Although the human costs and risks are significant, the potentially favorable survival outcomes make this acceptable in the absence of other effective treatment modalities that would otherwise result in debilitating symptoms that afflict patients who have advanced pelvic malignancy.

Author Information

1 Hepatobiliary and Surgical Oncology Unit, UNSW Department of Surgery, St George Hospital, Systematic Review Unit, The Collaborative Research (CORE) Group, Kogarah, New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

2 St George Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Systematic Review Unit, The Collaborative Research (CORE) Group, Kogarah, New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

3 General Surgery and Surgical Oncology Section, Systematic Review Unit, The Collaborative Research (CORE) Group, Kogarah, New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

Funding/Support: Dr Chua's research is supported by the Ramaciotti Foundation.

Financial Disclosures: None reported.

Correspondence: Terence Chua, B.Sc.Med. (Hons.), M.B.B.S., M.R.C.S. (Edinb.), Ph.D., Hepatobiliary and Surgical Oncology Unit, UNSW Department of Surgery, St George Hospital, Kogarah, Sydney, NSW 2217, Australia. E-mail: terence.chua@unsw.edu.au

© The ASCRS 2013