Patterns of local and distant recurrences following resections for rectal cancer provide clinical perspective for multidisciplinary prevention and follow‐up programs. From 1968 to 1976 at Memorial Hospital, 412 patients with potentially curable rectal cancer were treated by anterior (AR) or abdominoperineal (APR) resections. First sites of recurrences were categorized as pelvis, liver, distant viscera, and intraabdominal/ retroperitoneal sites. Pelvic recurrences were further evaluated according to the location of the tumor, type of resection, and stage of disease. Among the 412 cases, 182 (44.2%) patients developed recurrence, of which 105 (57.6%) were pelvic. Pelvic recurrence was the predominating site either alone (55 of 103) or with concomitant extra‐pelvic sites (50/79). In instances of single‐site first recurrence, pelvic failure was recognized earliest at 19.1 months, which was significantly earlier than single‐distant visceral sites at 34.9 months. Pelvic recurrence was selectively related to various categories of the Dukes and modified Dukes staging systems. Dukes stage significantly predicted pelvic recurrence rates for Dukes A versus B. Astler‐Coller stages of B2 and C1 were associated with significantly lower rates of pelvic recurrence (29.7% and 22.1%, respectively) than C2 cancers. The incidence of pelvic recurrence was significantly increased for low and mid rectal cancers as compared with cancers at or above 12 cm. The type of resection utilized (APR versus AR) was associated with no difference in the rate of pelvic recurrence, except for the few patients in whom AR was performed for low rectal Dukes C cancers. Patients with pelvic recurrence had an ultimate disease‐free survival of only 3.8% as compared with patients with no pelvic recurrence of whom 77% remained alive without disease or went on to die of other causes. The timing and predominance of pelvic failure in rectal cancer with its own treatment‐related morbidity and overall dismal survival outcome justifies organized multidisciplinary efforts to prevent such failure and prospective trials of comprehensive follow‐up programs to evaluate improved cure rates or palliation. Cancer 53:1354‐1362, 1984.
From 1968-1976, 412 patients were operated on for rectal cancers. One hundred fifty-six underwent abdominoperineal resection (APR) and 256 underwent low anterior resection (LAR). One hundred ninety-two underwent en bloc pelvic lymphadenectomy in conjunction with their resection, while 220 patients underwent more conservative or conventional resection. Thirty-day hospital mortality was 1.7%. The cancer-related 5-year survival was 58.8% for all patients. The proportion of patients surviving 5 years after LAR (62.8%) was significantly better than those surviving after APR (52.4%), p = 0.008. Statistically significantly superior survival was observed after extended dissection when compared to conventional resections in Dukes' A, B, and C patients as a whole (63.8 and 54.3%) and in Dukes' C patients in particular. Superiority of en bloc pelvic lymphadenectomy versus conventional resection was observed in all cases of Dukes' Stage C, Astler-Coller Stage C1, Level II (adjacent) lymph nodes, and Level I (proximal) lymph nodes and was most effective in combination with sphincter-preserving operations. Patient groups were compared for bias and/or case selection, using both contingency tables and Cox-based multiple covariant linear regression analysis, and none was found. In the face of current adjuvant therapy, which is of questionable benefit and which carries its own treatment morbidity, en bloc pelvic lymphadenectomy is advocated as an adjunct to the curative operations for rectal cancer. To improve the overall benefit, patients can be selected for pelvic lymphadenectomy as an adjuvant to resection when preoperative examination suggests that the rectal cancer penetrates the bowel wall. Accurate preoperative staging may help to define a more restricted group of patients warranting (pelvic lymphadenectomy) (PLND). A control randomized trial of the effectiveness of PLND is appropriate to further test its value.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.