The Oncological and Functional Risks of the Organ Preservation Experimental Tre...

• Autor(es): Cocco Martins, C
• Data: 2013
• Identificador Persistente: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/1902
• Origem: Repositório do Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central, EPE
• Assunto(s): HSJ MED; Neoplasias do Recto; Tratamento; Resultado de Tratamento; Oncologia
• Tipo de Documento: Outro
• Idioma: Inglês

Descrição

We increasingly face conservative surgery for rectal cancer and even the so called ‘wait and see’ approach, as far as 10–20% patients can reach a complete pathological response at the time of surgery. But what can we say to our patients about risks? Standard surgery with mesorectal excision gives a <2% local recurrence with a post operative death rate of 2–8% (may reach 30% at 6 months in those over 85), but low AR has some deterioration in bowel function and in low cancer a permanent stoma may be required. Also a long-term impact on urinary and sexual function is possible. Distant metastasis rate seem to be identical in the standard and conservative approach. It is difficult to evaluate conservative approach because a not clear standardization of surgery for low rectal cancer. Rullier et al tried to clarify, and they found identical results for recurrence (5–9%), disease free survival (70%) at 5y for coloanal anastomosis and intersphinteric resection. Other series have found local recurrence higher than with standard approach and functional results may be worse and, in some situations, salvage therapy is compromised or has more complications. In this context, functional outcomes are very important but most studies are incomplete in measuring bowel function in the context of conservative approach. In 2005 Temple et al made a survey of 122/184 patient after sphinter preserving surgery and found a 96.9% of incomplete evacuation, 94.4% clustering, 93.2% food affecting frequency, 91.8% gas incontinence and proposed a systematic evaluation with a specific questionnaire. In which concerns ‘Wait and see’ approach for complete clinical responders, it was first advocated by Habr Gama for tumors up to 7cm, with a low locoregional failure of 4.6%, 5y overall survival 96%, 72% for disease free survival; one fifth of patients failed in the first year; a Dutch trial had identical results but others had worse recurrence rates; in other series 25% of patients could not be salvaged even with APR; 30% have subsequent metastatic disease what seems equal for ‘wait and see’ and operated patients. In a recent review Glynne Jones considers that all the evaluated ‘wait and see’ studies are heterogeneous in staging, inclusion criteria, design and follow up after chemoradiation and that there is the suggestion that patients who progress while under observation fare worse than those resected. He proposes long-term observational studies with more uniform inclusion criteria. We are now facing a moment where we may be more aggressive in early cancer and neoadjuvant treatment to be more conservative in the subsequent treatment but we need a better stratification of patients, better evaluation of results and more clear prognostic markers.