Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 3/2014

01-03-2014 | Colorectal Cancer

An MRI-based Assessment of Standard and Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision Specimens: Time for a Patient Tailored Approach?

Authors: Peter How, BSc, Nicholas P. West, PhD, G. Brown, MD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 3/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) has been proposed as oncologically superior to standard abdominoperineal excision (SAPE). However, little is known regarding comparative margins achieved in ELAPE and SAPE. The purpose of this study was to compare patterns of tissue removal between these two groups that can aid patient selection.

Methods

Twenty APE specimens, comprising 10 SAPEs and 10 ELAPEs, were selected randomly from a single UK centre. Transverse slices of pathological specimens were matched to corresponding axial MRI images obtained from conventional pelvic MRI imaging. Measurements from the muscularis propria to the resection margin [muscularis to margin (MTM) distance] were recorded by height (from anal verge) and quadrant for each surgical group. MTM distances achieved on histopathological assessment were also compared to MRI assessed distances necessary to achieve a clear CRM.

Results

ELAPE specimens had a greater mean MTM distance than for SAPE (7.75 vs. 5.61 mm, p = 0.02). ELAPE had significantly greater MTM distances in lateral and posterior quadrants (p < 0.05) than SAPE at 30–49 mm. There was no significant difference in mean anterior distances (1.57 vs. 1.16 mm, p = 0.507) with the smallest difference at a height of 60–69 mm. Two (2 %) of pathological MTM distances within ELAPE group failed to achieve the minimum MRI assessed distance compared with 30 (23 %) in the SAPE group, which had higher CRM positivity.

Conclusions

ELAPE appears to confer oncological benefit over SAPE but with notable exceptions, including tumours located above and below the puborectalis sling and anteriorly at the level of prostate where exenteration may be more appropriate.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Thorpe H, Quirke P, Copeland J, Smith AMH, Heath RM, Brown JM. Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(21):3061-8.PubMedCrossRef Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Thorpe H, Quirke P, Copeland J, Smith AMH, Heath RM, Brown JM. Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(21):3061-8.PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJH, Marijnen CAM, van Krieken JHJM, Quirke P. Low rectal cancer: a call for a change of approach in abdominoperineal resection. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(36):9257-64.PubMedCrossRef Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJH, Marijnen CAM, van Krieken JHJM, Quirke P. Low rectal cancer: a call for a change of approach in abdominoperineal resection. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(36):9257-64.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Nagtegaal ID, Quirke P. What is the role for the circumferential margin in the modern treatment of rectal cancer? J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(2):303-12.PubMedCrossRef Nagtegaal ID, Quirke P. What is the role for the circumferential margin in the modern treatment of rectal cancer? J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(2):303-12.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Marr R, Birbeck K, et al. The modern abdominoperineal excision: the next challenge after total mesorectal excision. Ann Surg. 2005;242(1):74-82.PubMedCrossRef Marr R, Birbeck K, et al. The modern abdominoperineal excision: the next challenge after total mesorectal excision. Ann Surg. 2005;242(1):74-82.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Salerno G, Chandler I, Wotherspoon A, Thomas K, Moran B, Brown G. Sites of surgical wasting in the abdominoperineal specimen. Br J Surg. 2008;95(9):1147-54.PubMedCrossRef Salerno G, Chandler I, Wotherspoon A, Thomas K, Moran B, Brown G. Sites of surgical wasting in the abdominoperineal specimen. Br J Surg. 2008;95(9):1147-54.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Miles E. A method of performing abdominoperineal excision for carcinoma of the rectum and of the terminal portion of the pelvic colon. Lancet. 1908;2:1812-1813.CrossRef Miles E. A method of performing abdominoperineal excision for carcinoma of the rectum and of the terminal portion of the pelvic colon. Lancet. 1908;2:1812-1813.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference West NP, Finan PJ, et al. Evidence of the oncologic superiority of cylindrical abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(21):3517–3522.PubMedCrossRef West NP, Finan PJ, et al. Evidence of the oncologic superiority of cylindrical abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(21):3517–3522.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference West NP, Anderin C, et al. Multicentre experience with extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2010;97(4):588-99.PubMedCrossRef West NP, Anderin C, et al. Multicentre experience with extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2010;97(4):588-99.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;327:307–10.CrossRef Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;327:307–10.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Shihab OC, Taylor F, Salerno G, Heald RJ, Quirke P, Moran BJ, Brown G. MRI predictive factors for long-term outcomes of low rectal tumours. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(12):3278-84. Epub 2011 May 18.PubMedCrossRef Shihab OC, Taylor F, Salerno G, Heald RJ, Quirke P, Moran BJ, Brown G. MRI predictive factors for long-term outcomes of low rectal tumours. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(12):3278-84. Epub 2011 May 18.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Shihab OC, Brown G, Daniels IR, Heald RJ, Quirke P, Moran BJ. Patients with low rectal cancer treated by abdominoperineal excision have worse tumours and higher involved margin rates compared with patients treated by anterior resection. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53(3):251-256.CrossRef Shihab OC, Brown G, Daniels IR, Heald RJ, Quirke P, Moran BJ. Patients with low rectal cancer treated by abdominoperineal excision have worse tumours and higher involved margin rates compared with patients treated by anterior resection. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53(3):251-256.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Nagtegaal ID, Cornelius JH, et al. Low rectal cancer: a call for a change of approach in abdominoperineal resection. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(36):9257-64.PubMedCrossRef Nagtegaal ID, Cornelius JH, et al. Low rectal cancer: a call for a change of approach in abdominoperineal resection. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(36):9257-64.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Mathis KL, Larson DW, et al. Outcomes following surgery without radiotherapy for rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2012;99(1):137-43.PubMedCrossRef Mathis KL, Larson DW, et al. Outcomes following surgery without radiotherapy for rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2012;99(1):137-43.PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Messenger DE, Cohen Z, et al. Favorable pathologic and long-term outcomes from the conventional approach to abdominoperineal resection. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:793-802.PubMedCrossRef Messenger DE, Cohen Z, et al. Favorable pathologic and long-term outcomes from the conventional approach to abdominoperineal resection. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:793-802.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
An MRI-based Assessment of Standard and Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision Specimens: Time for a Patient Tailored Approach?
Authors
Peter How, BSc
Nicholas P. West, PhD
G. Brown, MD
Publication date
01-03-2014
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 3/2014
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-013-3378-7

Other articles of this Issue 3/2014

Annals of Surgical Oncology 3/2014 Go to the issue