Microscopic spread of low rectal cancer in regions of mesorectum: pathologic assessment with whole-mount sections.

Department of Gastroenterology Surgery and Institute of Digestive Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
World Journal of Gastroenterology (Impact Factor: 2.43). 11/2004; 10(20):2949-53.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To assess the microscopic spread of low rectal cancer in mesorectum regions to provide pathological evidence for the necessity of total mesorectal excision (TME).
A total of 62 patients with low rectal cancer underwent low anterior resection and TME, surgical specimens were sliced transversely on the serial embedded blocks at 2.5 mm interval, and stained with hematoxylin and eosin (HE). The mesorectum on whole-mount sections was divided into three regions: outer region of mesorectum (ORM), middle region of mesorectum (MRM) and inner region of mesorectum (IRM). Microscopic metastatic foci were investigated microscopically on the sections for the metastatic mesorectal regions, frequency, types, involvement of lymphatic vessels and correlation with the original rectal cancer.
Microscopic spread of the tumor in mesorectum and ORM was observed in 38.7% (24/62) and 25.8% (16/62) of the patients, respectively. Circumferential resection margin (CRM) with involvement of microscopic metastatic foci occurred in 6.5% (4/62) of the patients, and distal mesorectum (DMR) involved was 6.5% (4/62) with the spread extent within 3 cm of low board of the main lesions. Most (20/24) of the patients with microscopic metastasis in mesorectum were in Dukes C stage.
Results of the present study support that complete excision of the mesorectum without destruction of the ORM is essential for surgical management of low rectal cancer, an optimal DMR clearance resection margin should be no less than 4 cm, further pathologic assessment of the regions in extramesorectum in the pelvis is needed.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: Total mesorectal excision (TME) has been widely accepted as the principal method in rectal cancer surgery and demonstrates good oncologic and functional outcome. The recurrence rate of mid-low rectal cancer surgery with TME is reported as 5 similar to 6%. Concerning local recurrence, remaining microscopic nodules in mesorectum are a major issue. In this study, we investigated mesorectal spread of tumors and exact lateral resection margin using whole mount section (WMS) to obtain correlations with other clinico-pathological variables. Methods: 63 rectal cancer patients underwent surgery with TME and WMS at National Health Insurance Corporation Ilsan Hospital between December 2005 and October 2008. Preoperative study was made by computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We measured the distance from the largest cut section of the primary tumor to the nearest circumferential margin using MRI and compared then to lateral resection margins in WMS. Results: Among 63 patients, the sex ratio was 1 : 1.17 and the median age was 62.7 years. There were 34 patients in TNM stage III (54.0%), 21 patients in stage II (33.3%) and 8 patients in stage I (12.7%). Lateral margin involvement was predicted in 4 cases pre-operatively and confirmed in 3 cases with WMS. Micrometastasis in mesorectum was detected in 6 patients (9.5%) and all were in stage III. N stage was statistically correlated with micrometastasis (P=0.016). Conclusion: WMS offers precise lateral resection margin and mesorectal spread of microscopic tumor nodules. WMS is best considered in stage III, cancer to evaluate mesorectal micrometastasis. The mid-low rectal cancer cases with predicted lateral margin involvements using MRI should be operated on with great care. (J Korean Surg Soc 2010;78:298-304)
    Journal of the Korean Surgical Society 05/2010; 78(5). DOI:10.4174/jkss.2010.78.5.298 · 0.21 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although tumor deposits have been associated with poor prognosis in colorectal carcinoma, the prevalence and clinical significance of tumor deposits in rectal adenocarcinoma following neoadjuvant chemoradiation are relatively unexplored. The aims of this study are to assess the clinical significance of tumor deposits in rectal adenocarcinoma patients, including those receiving neoadjuvant therapy. Pathology slides and medical records from 205 consecutive patients who underwent resection for rectal adenocarcinoma between 1990 and 2010 at a single tertiary care center were reviewed. Patients with tumor deposits had higher tumor grade (P=0.006) and worse tumor stage (P<0.001) at presentation than patients without tumor deposits. Among 110 patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation, tumor deposits were associated with higher rates of lymph node involvement (P=0.035) and distant metastases (P=0.006), and decreased survival (P=0.027). These patients had a trend toward lower treatment response scores (P=0.285) and higher local recurrence (P=0.092). Of 52 patients with tumor deposits, those who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation had significantly worse pretreatment stage by endoscopic ultrasound (P<0.001) but interestingly had significantly lower rates of lymphovascular invasion on resection (P<0.001) compared with those who had not received neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Despite treatment with neoadjuvant chemoradiation, tumor deposits were present in over one-fifth of rectal adenocarcinoma patients. Overall, the outcome of patients with tumor deposits in treated and untreated patients were similar, however the association of tumor deposits with deeply invasive tumors and less tumor regression when comparing with treated patients without tumor deposits raises the possibility that these tumors could have a more aggressive biology, possibly explaining the association of tumor deposits with higher rates of recurrence and lower survival after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Overall, tumor deposits appear to be a poor prognostic marker among rectal adenocarcinoma patients following neoadjuvant chemoradiation and may identify a subset of patients who require aggressive adjuvant therapy to prevent recurrence.Modern Pathology advance online publication, 17 January 2014; doi:10.1038/modpathol.2013.239.
    Modern Pathology 01/2014; DOI:10.1038/modpathol.2013.239 · 6.36 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Treatment of rectal cancer requires an interdisciplinary approach, with imaging techniques and morphological examination playing important roles. The pathologist is involved in several steps of diagnostics and treatment planning for patients with rectal tumors. Starting with the preoperative biopsy, the pathologist confirms the diagnosis of cancer and estimates the biological behavior of the tumor by classification and grading. In­traoperative diagnostics ensure the completeness of resection and postoperative examinations provide final histopathological and pTNM-classification. Additionally, information about the therapeutic response to neoadjuvant strategies is provided by the assessment of tumor regression. By including molecular pathological methods, the pathologist can evaluate predictive markers (e.g., KRAS mutation analysis for antibody therapy) and contribute to the diagnosis of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) by analyzing microsatellite instability. This chapter describes the role of pathology in the management of rectal cancer.

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jan 12, 2015