Cargando…

Pelvic exenteration for colorectal and non-colorectal cancer: a comparison of perioperative and oncological outcome

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration (PE) is the only option for long-term cure of advanced cancer originating from different types of tumor or recurrent disease in the lower pelvis. The aim was to show differences between colorectal and non-colorectal cancer in survival and postoperative morbidity. METH...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bogner, Andreas, Fritzmann, Johannes, Müssle, Benjamin, Huber, Johannes, Dobroschke, Jakob, Bork, Ulrich, Wolk, Steffen, Distler, Marius, Weitz, Jürgen, Welsch, Thilo, Kahlert, Christoph
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8279979/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33677655
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00384-021-03893-y
_version_ 1783722556524593152
author Bogner, Andreas
Fritzmann, Johannes
Müssle, Benjamin
Huber, Johannes
Dobroschke, Jakob
Bork, Ulrich
Wolk, Steffen
Distler, Marius
Weitz, Jürgen
Welsch, Thilo
Kahlert, Christoph
author_facet Bogner, Andreas
Fritzmann, Johannes
Müssle, Benjamin
Huber, Johannes
Dobroschke, Jakob
Bork, Ulrich
Wolk, Steffen
Distler, Marius
Weitz, Jürgen
Welsch, Thilo
Kahlert, Christoph
author_sort Bogner, Andreas
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration (PE) is the only option for long-term cure of advanced cancer originating from different types of tumor or recurrent disease in the lower pelvis. The aim was to show differences between colorectal and non-colorectal cancer in survival and postoperative morbidity. METHODS: Retrospective data of 63 patients treated with total pelvic exenteration between 2013 and 2018 are reported. Pre-, intra-, and postoperative parameters, survival data, and risk factors for complications were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 57.2% (n = 37) of the patients had colorectal cancer, 22.3% had gynecological malignancies (vulvar (n = 6) or cervical (n = 8) cancer), 11.1% (n = 7) had anal cancer, and 9.5% had other primary tumors. A total of 30.2% (n = 19) underwent PE for a primary tumor and 69.8% (n = 44) for recurrent cancer. The 30-day in-hospital mortality was 0%. Neoadjuvant treatment was administered to 65.1% (n = 41) of the patients and correlated significantly with postoperative complications (odds ratio 4.441; 95% CI: 1.375–14.342, P > 0.05). R0, R1, R2, and Rx resections were achieved in 65.1%, 19%, 1.6%, and 14.3% of the patients, respectively. In patients undergoing R0 resection, 2-year OS and RFS were 73.2% and 52.4%, respectively. Resection status was a significant risk factor for recurrence-free and overall survival (OS) in univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis revealed age (P = 0.021), ASA ≥ 3 (P = 0.005), high blood loss (P = 0.028), low preoperative hemoglobin level (P < 0.001), nodal positivity (P < 0.001), and surgical complications (P = 0.003) as independent risk factors for OS. CONCLUSION: Pelvic exenteration is a procedure with high morbidity rates but remains the only curative option for advanced or recurrent colorectal and non-colorectal cancer in the pelvis. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00384-021-03893-y.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8279979
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82799792021-07-20 Pelvic exenteration for colorectal and non-colorectal cancer: a comparison of perioperative and oncological outcome Bogner, Andreas Fritzmann, Johannes Müssle, Benjamin Huber, Johannes Dobroschke, Jakob Bork, Ulrich Wolk, Steffen Distler, Marius Weitz, Jürgen Welsch, Thilo Kahlert, Christoph Int J Colorectal Dis Original Article BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration (PE) is the only option for long-term cure of advanced cancer originating from different types of tumor or recurrent disease in the lower pelvis. The aim was to show differences between colorectal and non-colorectal cancer in survival and postoperative morbidity. METHODS: Retrospective data of 63 patients treated with total pelvic exenteration between 2013 and 2018 are reported. Pre-, intra-, and postoperative parameters, survival data, and risk factors for complications were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 57.2% (n = 37) of the patients had colorectal cancer, 22.3% had gynecological malignancies (vulvar (n = 6) or cervical (n = 8) cancer), 11.1% (n = 7) had anal cancer, and 9.5% had other primary tumors. A total of 30.2% (n = 19) underwent PE for a primary tumor and 69.8% (n = 44) for recurrent cancer. The 30-day in-hospital mortality was 0%. Neoadjuvant treatment was administered to 65.1% (n = 41) of the patients and correlated significantly with postoperative complications (odds ratio 4.441; 95% CI: 1.375–14.342, P > 0.05). R0, R1, R2, and Rx resections were achieved in 65.1%, 19%, 1.6%, and 14.3% of the patients, respectively. In patients undergoing R0 resection, 2-year OS and RFS were 73.2% and 52.4%, respectively. Resection status was a significant risk factor for recurrence-free and overall survival (OS) in univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis revealed age (P = 0.021), ASA ≥ 3 (P = 0.005), high blood loss (P = 0.028), low preoperative hemoglobin level (P < 0.001), nodal positivity (P < 0.001), and surgical complications (P = 0.003) as independent risk factors for OS. CONCLUSION: Pelvic exenteration is a procedure with high morbidity rates but remains the only curative option for advanced or recurrent colorectal and non-colorectal cancer in the pelvis. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00384-021-03893-y. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-03-07 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8279979/ /pubmed/33677655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00384-021-03893-y Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Bogner, Andreas
Fritzmann, Johannes
Müssle, Benjamin
Huber, Johannes
Dobroschke, Jakob
Bork, Ulrich
Wolk, Steffen
Distler, Marius
Weitz, Jürgen
Welsch, Thilo
Kahlert, Christoph
Pelvic exenteration for colorectal and non-colorectal cancer: a comparison of perioperative and oncological outcome
title Pelvic exenteration for colorectal and non-colorectal cancer: a comparison of perioperative and oncological outcome
title_full Pelvic exenteration for colorectal and non-colorectal cancer: a comparison of perioperative and oncological outcome
title_fullStr Pelvic exenteration for colorectal and non-colorectal cancer: a comparison of perioperative and oncological outcome
title_full_unstemmed Pelvic exenteration for colorectal and non-colorectal cancer: a comparison of perioperative and oncological outcome
title_short Pelvic exenteration for colorectal and non-colorectal cancer: a comparison of perioperative and oncological outcome
title_sort pelvic exenteration for colorectal and non-colorectal cancer: a comparison of perioperative and oncological outcome
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8279979/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33677655
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00384-021-03893-y
work_keys_str_mv AT bognerandreas pelvicexenterationforcolorectalandnoncolorectalcanceracomparisonofperioperativeandoncologicaloutcome
AT fritzmannjohannes pelvicexenterationforcolorectalandnoncolorectalcanceracomparisonofperioperativeandoncologicaloutcome
AT musslebenjamin pelvicexenterationforcolorectalandnoncolorectalcanceracomparisonofperioperativeandoncologicaloutcome
AT huberjohannes pelvicexenterationforcolorectalandnoncolorectalcanceracomparisonofperioperativeandoncologicaloutcome
AT dobroschkejakob pelvicexenterationforcolorectalandnoncolorectalcanceracomparisonofperioperativeandoncologicaloutcome
AT borkulrich pelvicexenterationforcolorectalandnoncolorectalcanceracomparisonofperioperativeandoncologicaloutcome
AT wolksteffen pelvicexenterationforcolorectalandnoncolorectalcanceracomparisonofperioperativeandoncologicaloutcome
AT distlermarius pelvicexenterationforcolorectalandnoncolorectalcanceracomparisonofperioperativeandoncologicaloutcome
AT weitzjurgen pelvicexenterationforcolorectalandnoncolorectalcanceracomparisonofperioperativeandoncologicaloutcome
AT welschthilo pelvicexenterationforcolorectalandnoncolorectalcanceracomparisonofperioperativeandoncologicaloutcome
AT kahlertchristoph pelvicexenterationforcolorectalandnoncolorectalcanceracomparisonofperioperativeandoncologicaloutcome