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
. 2023 Jun 27;15(6):1104-1115.
doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v15.i6.1104.

Long-term outcomes and failure patterns after laparoscopic intersphincteric resection in ultralow rectal cancers

Wen-Long Qiu  1 , Xiao-Lin Wang  2 , Jun-Guang Liu  3 , Gang Hu  1 , Shi-Wen Mei  1 , Jian-Qiang Tang  4
Affiliations

Long-term outcomes and failure patterns after laparoscopic intersphincteric resection in ultralow rectal cancers

Wen-Long Qiu et al. World J Gastrointest Surg. .

Abstract

Background: Intersphincteric resection (ISR), the ultimate anus-preserving technique for ultralow rectal cancers, is an alternative to abdominoperineal resection (APR). The failure patterns and risk factors for local recurrence and distant metastasis remain controversial and require further investigation.

Aim: To investigate the long-term outcomes and failure patterns after laparoscopic ISR in ultralow rectal cancers.

Methods: Patients who underwent laparoscopic ISR (LsISR) at Peking University First Hospital between January 2012 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Correlation analysis was performed using the Chi-square or Pearson's correlation test. Prognostic factors for overall survival (OS), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) were analyzed using Cox regression.

Results: We enrolled 368 patients with a median follow-up of 42 mo. Local recurrence and distant metastasis occurred in 13 (3.5%) and 42 (11.4%) cases, respectively. The 3-year OS, LRFS, and DMFS rates were 91.3%, 97.1%, and 90.1%, respectively. Multivariate analyses revealed that LRFS was associated with positive lymph node status [hazard ratio (HR) = 5.411, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.413-20.722, P = 0.014] and poor differentiation (HR = 3.739, 95%CI: 1.171-11.937, P = 0.026), whereas the independent prognostic factors for DMFS were positive lymph node status (HR = 2.445, 95%CI: 1.272-4.698, P = 0.007) and (y)pT3 stage (HR = 2.741, 95%CI: 1.225-6.137, P = 0.014).

Conclusion: This study confirmed the oncological safety of LsISR for ultralow rectal cancer. Poor differentiation, (y)pT3 stage, and lymph node metastasis are independent risk factors for treatment failure after LsISR, and thus patients with these factors should be carefully managed with optimal neoadjuvant therapy, and for patients with a high risk of local recurrence (N + or poor differentiation), extended radical resection (such as APR instead of ISR) may be more effective.

Keywords: Intersphincteric resection; Laparoscopic surgery; Rectal cancer; Recurrence; Risk factors.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict-of-interest statement: All the authors report no relevant conflicts of interest for this article.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Patient selection.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Kaplan-Meier survival curves for the overall survival of patients with rectal cancer after intersphincteric resection surgery. A: Age; B: (y)pT stage; C: Differentiation.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Kaplan-Meier survival curves for the local recurrence-free survival of patients with rectal cancer after intersphincteric resection surgery. A: (y)pN (3a); B: Differentiation level (3b).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Kaplan-Meier survival curves for the distant metastasis-free survival of patients with rectal cancer after intersphincteric resection surgery. A: (y)pT (4a); B: (y)pN (4b).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Xv Y, Fan J, Ding Y, Hu Y, Jiang Z, Tao Q. Latest Advances in Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2020;2020:8928109. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Martin ST, Heneghan HM, Winter DC. Systematic review of outcomes after intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2012;99:603–612. - PubMed
    1. Chen H, Ma B, Gao P, Wang H, Song Y, Tong L, Li P, Wang Z. Laparoscopic intersphincteric resection versus an open approach for low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2017;15:229. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mukkai Krishnamurty D, Wise PE. Importance of surgical margins in rectal cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2016;113:323–332. - PubMed
    1. Yamada K, Saiki Y, Takano S, Iwamoto K, Tanaka M, Fukunaga M, Noguchi T, Nakamura Y, Hisano S, Fukami K, Kuwahara D, Tsuji Y, Takano M, Usuku K, Ikeda T, Sugihara K. Long-term results of intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer in Japan. Surg Today. 2019;49:275–285. - PubMed