ABSTRACT: Currently, circumferential resection margins (CRM) are used as a clinical endpoint in studies on the prognosis of rectal cancer. Although the concept of a circumferential resection margin in extraperitoneal rectal cancer differs from that in intraperitoneal rectal cancer due to differences in anatomical and biologic behaviors, previous reports have provided information on CRM involvement in all types of rectal cancer including intraperitoneal lesions. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze risk factors of CRM involvement in extraperitoneal rectal cancer.
From January 2005 to December 2008, 306 patients with extraperitoneal rectal cancer were enrolled in a prospectively collected database. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of CRM involvement.
The overall rate of CRM involvement was found to be 16.0%. Multivariate analysis showed that male sex, larger tumor size (≥4 cm), stage higher than T3, nodal metastasis, tumor perforation and non-sphincter preserving proctectomy (NSPP) were risk factors for CRM involvement.
Male sex, larger tumor size (≥4 cm), advanced T stage, nodal metastasis, tumor perforation, and NSPP are significant risk factors of CRM involvement in extraperitoneal rectal cancer. Given that postoperative chemoradiotherapy is recommended for patients with a positive CRM, further oncologic studies are warranted to ascertain which patients with these risk factors would require adjuvant therapy.
Journal of the Korean Surgical Society. 03/2012; 82(3):165-71.
ABSTRACT: Despite the Government's National Cancer Screening Program for colorectal cancer (CRC), the number of individuals participating in screening in Korea is low. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify associations between relevant risk factors and the uptake of screening in Korea.
The Health Interview Survey sub-dataset derived from the Fourth Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES IV) was used to evaluate participation in CRC screening and factors associated with attendance in individuals aged ≥50. Those that completed the questionnaire and not previously diagnosed with CRC were enrolled (8,042 subjects). Multi-dimensional covariates were considered as potential predictors for CRC screening in multivariate analyses.
A total of 33.2% complied with the CRC screening recommendations. The following were associated with participation: age (aged 70 or older [ref], aged 70 or over; odds ratio (OR) 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.54-2.14), marital status (OR 1.43, 95%CI 1.23-1.66), urban-dwelling (OR 1.16, 95%CI 1.02-1.32), education level (elementary school or less [ref], high school (OR 1.29, 95%CI 1.09-1.53), university or higher (OR 1.53, 95%CI 1.23-1.91)), household income (fourth quartile [ref], first quartile (OR 1.29, 95%CI 1.07-1.56)), private health insurance (OR 1.38, 95%CI 1.21-1.58), smoking (OR 1.35, 95%CI 1.43-1.60), self-reported depression (OR 0.79, 95%CI 0.68-0.92), and number of chronic diseases (0-3 [ref], ≥4 (OR 1.41, 95%CI 1.22-1.62)).
To improve participation in CRC screening, appropriate strategies must be directed toward vulnerable populations, such as those with low socioeconomic status.
International Journal of Colorectal Disease 02/2012; 27(8):1061-9. · 2.38 Impact Factor
ABSTRACT: Although robotic surgery was invented to overcome the technical limitations of laparoscopic surgery, the role of a robotic (procto)colectomy (RC) for the treatment of colorectal cancer compared to that of a laparoscopic (procto)colectomy (LC) was not well defined during the initial adoption periods of both procedures. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of a RC for the treatment of colorectal cancer by comparing the authors' initial experiences with both a RC and a LC.
The first 30 patients treated by using a RC for colorectal cancer from July 2010 to March 2011 were compared with the first 30 patients treated by using a LC for colorectal cancer from December 2006 to June 2007 by the same surgeon. Perioperative variables and short-term outcomes were analyzed. In addition, the 30 RC and the 30 LC cases involved were divided into rectal cancer (n = 17 and n = 12, respectively), left-sided colon cancer (n = 7 and n = 12, respectively) and right-sided colon cancer (n = 6 and n = 6, respectively) for subgroup analyses.
The mean operating times for RC and LC were significantly different at 371.8 and 275.5 minutes, respectively, but other perioperative parameters (rates of open conversion, numbers of retrieved lymph node, estimated blood losses, times to first flatus, maximal pain scores before discharge and postoperative hospital stays) were not significantly different in the two groups. Subgroup analyses showed that the mean operative times for a robotic proctectomy and a laparoscopic proctectomy were 396.5 and 298.8 minutes, respectively (P < 0.000). Postoperative complications occurred in five patients in the RC group and in six patients in the LC group (P = 0.739).
Although the short-term outcomes of a RC during its initial use were better than those of a LC (with the exception of operating time), differences were not found to be significantly different. On the other hand, the longer operation time of a robotic proctectomy compared to that of a laparoscopic proctectomy during the early period may be problematic.
Journal of the Korean Society of Coloproctology 02/2012; 28(1):19-26.
ABSTRACT: Postoperative small bowel obstruction is a common and serious complication following a proctectomy, and early postoperative small bowel obstruction (EPSBO) leads to longer hospital stays, delays chemotherapy in advanced cases, and may be a contributor to mortality. The goal of this study is to identify the risk factors of EPSBO after a proctectomy for rectal cancer, thereby seeking to reduce the incidence of EPSBO.
Patients (735) who underwent a proctectomy for rectal cancer between March 2005 and February 2010 were entered into this study, and data were collected prospectively. Patients were judged to have EPSBO if, within the first 30 days, they presented symptoms such as nausea, vomiting and abdominal distention lasting for 2 days, and radiologic finding of small bowel obstruction after evidence of return of small bowel motility. The association between EPSBO and patients and surgery-related variables were studied by using univariate and multivariate analyses.
EPSBO developed in 47 cases (6.4%) and was the most frequently occurring complication in the early perioperative period following a proctectomy. The frequency of EPSBO according to operative variables shows that EPSBO developed in 3.0% of the patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery (LS) compared with 8.4% of the patients who underwent open surgery (OS) (P = 0.004). OS (odds ratio [OR], 2.5) and a previous laparotomy (OR, 2.3) were independent risk factors for the development of EPSBO after a proctectomy for rectal cancer.
EPSBO is more likely to occur in patients who undergo OS or who have had a previous laparotomy. LS may be considered as a surgical procedure that can reduce the risk of EPSBO in patients undergoing a proctectomy for rectal cancer.
Journal of the Korean Society of Coloproctology 12/2011; 27(6):315-21.