Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2021 Mar;36(3):551-558.
doi: 10.1007/s00384-020-03804-7. Epub 2020 Nov 26.

Lateral pelvic lymphadenectomy for low rectal cancer: a META-analysis of recurrence rates

M R Fahy  1 , M E Kelly  2 , T Nugent  3 , E Hannan  4 , D C Winter  4
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Lateral pelvic lymphadenectomy for low rectal cancer: a META-analysis of recurrence rates

M R Fahy et al. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2021 Mar.

Abstract

Background: Locoregional recurrence (LR) remains a problem for patients with lower rectal cancer despite standardized surgery and improved neoadjuvant treatment regimens. Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLND) has been routine practice for some time in the Orient/East, but other regions have concerns about morbidity. As perioperative care and surgical approaches are refined, this has been revisited for selected patients. The question as to whether LPLND improves oncological outcomes was explored here.

Methods: A systematic review of patients who underwent TME with or without LPLND from 2000 to 2020 was performed. The primary endpoint was the rate of LR between the two groups.

Results: Seven papers met the predefined search criteria in which 2000 patients underwent TME alone, while 1563 patients had TME and LPLND. The rate of LR was marginally higher with TME alone when compared with TME plus LPLND, but this result was not statistically significant (9.8 vs 9.4%, odds ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.41-1.38, *p = 0.35). In addition, four studies reported on distant recurrence rates, with TME and LPLND showing a slight reduction in overall rates (27.3 vs 29.9%, respectively, OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.45-0.92, *p = 0.02).

Conclusion: The addition of LPLND to TME is not associated with a significantly lower risk of LR in patients who undergo surgery for lower rectal cancer.

Keywords: Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection; Local recurrence; Rectal cancer; Surgical outcomes; Surgical strategies; Survival outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Rawla P, Sunkara T, Barsouk A (2019) Epidemiology of colorectal cancer: incidence, mortality, survival and risk factors. Prz Gastroenterol 14(2):89–103 - PubMed - PMC
    1. Dekker E, Tanis PJ, Vleugels JLA, Kasi PM, Wallace MB (2019) Colorectal Cancer. Lancet 394:167–180
    1. De Wilt JHW, Vermaas M, Ferenschild FTJ, Verhoef C (2007) Management of locally advanced primary and recurrent rectal cancer. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 20(3):255–264 - PubMed - PMC
    1. Beyond TME Collaborative (2013) Beyond TME collaborative consensus statement on the multidisciplinary management of patients with recurrent and primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes. Br J Surg 100(8):1009–1014
    1. Yamada K, Ishizawa T, Niwa K, Chuman Y, Aikou T (2002) Pelvic exenteration and sacral resection for locally advanced primary and recurrent rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 45:1078–1084 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources