Management of stage Ⅳ rectal cancer - World Journal of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Mulsow J et al . Treatment options and their outcomes in the management of distal rectal cancer 55 Taylor GW, Jayne DG, Brown SR, Thorpe H, Brown JM, Dewberry SC, Parker MC, Guillou PJ. Adhesions and incisional hernias following laparoscopic versus open surgery for colorectal cancer in the CLASICC trial. Br J Surg 2010; 97: 70-78 56 Jayne DG, Brown JM, Thorpe H, Walker J, Quirke P, Guillou PJ. Bladder and sexual function following resection for rectal cancer in a randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open technique. Br J Surg 2005; 92: 1124-1132 57 Marijnen CA, Kapiteijn E, van de Velde CJ, Martijn H, Steup WH, Wiggers T, Kranenbarg EK, Leer JW. Acute side effects and complications after short-term preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision in primary rectal cancer: report of a multicenter randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 817-825 58 Bujko K, Nowacki MP, Nasierowska-Guttmejer A, Michalski W, Bebenek M, Kryj M. Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing preoperative short-course radiotherapy with preoperative conventionally fractionated chemoradiation for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2006; 93: 1215-1223 59 Perez RO, Habr-Gama A, Seid VE, Proscurshim I, Sousa AH Jr, Kiss DR, Linhares M, Sapucahy M, Gama-Rodrigues J. Loop ileostomy morbidity: timing of closure matters. Dis Colon Rectum 2006; 49: 1539-1545 WJG|www.wjgnet.com 60 Zolciak A, Bujko K, Kepka L, Oledzki J, Rutkowski A, Nowacki MP. Abdominoperineal resection or anterior resection for rectal cancer: patient preferences before and after treatment. Colorectal Dis 2006; 8: 575-580 61 Masya LM, Young JM, Solomon MJ, Harrison JD, Dennis RJ, Salkeld GP. Preferences for outcomes of treatment for rectal cancer: patient and clinician utilities and their application in an interactive computer-based decision aid. Dis Colon Rectum 2009; 52: 1994-2002 62 Solomon MJ, Pager CK, Keshava A, Findlay M, Butow P, Salkeld GP, Roberts R. What do patients want? Patient preferences and surrogate decision making in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2003; 46: 1351-1357 63 Harrison JD, Solomon MJ, Young JM, Meagher A, Butow P, Salkeld G, Hruby G, Clarke S. Patient and physician preferences for surgical and adjuvant treatment options for rectal cancer. Arch Surg 2008; 143: 389-394 64 Bossema ER, Marijnen CA, Baas-Thijssen MC, van de Velde CJ, Stiggelbout AM. Evaluation of the treatment tradeoff method in rectal cancer patients: is surgery preference related to outcome utilities? Med Decis Making 2008; 28: 888-898 65 Bossema E, Stiggelbout A, Baas-Thijssen M, van de Velde C, Marijnen C. Patients’ preferences for low rectal cancer surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol 2008; 34: 42-48 S- Editor Sun H L- Editor O’Neill M E- Editor Ma WH 861 February 21, 2011|Volume 17|Issue 7|
Online Submissions: http://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327office wjg@wjgnet.com doi:10.3748/wjg.v17.i7.862 Imran Hassan, MD, Assistant Professor, Series Editor Minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer: Are we there yet? Bradley J Champagne, Rohit Makhija Bradley J Champagne, Division of Colorectal Surgery, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH 44106, United States Rohit Makhija, Laparoscopic Colorectal Fellow, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH 44106, United States Author contributions: Champagne BC wrote the paper, performed a literature search, analyzed data; Makhija R performed literature search and contributed to writing the paper. Correspondence to: Bradley J Champagne, MD, FACS, Associate Professor, Division of Colorectal Surgery, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH 44106, United States. brad.champagne@uhhospitals.org Telephone: +1-216-5267221 Fax: +1-216-8445957 Received: September 26, 2010 Revised: December 16, 2010 Accepted: December 23, 2010 Published online: February 21, 2011 Abstract Laparoscopic colon surgery for select cancers is slowly evolving as the standard of care but minimally invasive approaches for rectal cancer have been viewed with significant skepticism. This procedure has been performed by select surgeons at specialized centers and concerns over local recurrence, sexual dysfunction and appropriate training measures have further hindered widespread acceptance. Data for laparoscopic rectal resection now supports its continued implementation and widespread usage by expeienced surgeons for select patients. The current controversies regarding technical approaches have created ambiguity amongst opinion leaders and are also addressed in this review. © 2011 Baishideng. All rights reserved. Key words: Laparoscopic; Rectal cancer; Minimally invasive; Mesorectal excision Peer reviewer: Dr. Stefan Riss, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, 1090, Austria WJG|www.wjgnet.com 862 World J Gastroenterol 2011 February 21; 17(7): 862-866 ISSN 1007-9327 (print) ISSN 2219-2840 (online) © 2011 Baishideng. All rights reserved. Champagne BJ, Makhija R. Minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer: Are we there yet? World J Gastroenterol 2011; 17(7): 862-866 Available from: URL: http://www.wjgnet. com/1007-9327/full/v17/i7/862.htm DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.3748/wjg.v17.i7.862 INTRODUCTION The benefits of laparoscopic colon surgery compared to the open approach are well established [1-4] . Furthermore, laparotomy has been associated with an increased morbidity when compared to minimally invasive techniques for colorectal disease [5] . More recently, the implementation of enhanced care programs coupled to laparoscopic resection has also resulted in a significant reduction in length of stay after both colon and rectal resection [6,7] . Laparoscopic colon surgery for select cancers is slowly evolving as the standard of care but minimally invasive approaches for rectal cancer have been viewed with significant skepticism. Laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer is performed by select surgeons at specialized centers. The variability in anatomic definitions of the rectum, technique, selection criteria, and need for neoadjuvant therapy amongst this group of surgeons have made parallel comparisons difficult and ambiguous. Concern over local recurrence, sexual dysfunction and appropriate training measures have further hindered widespread acceptance of this approach. This opinion addresses short-term and oncological outcomes for laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer, the aforementioned obstacles, and current controversies regarding technical approaches. ONCOlOgICal OUTCOmes TOPIC HIGHLIGHT There are many potential endpoints for determining success for laparoscopic rectal resection. Undoubtedly, the February 21, 2011|Volume 17|Issue 7|
Page 1 and 2:
World Journal of Gastroenterology W
Page 3 and 4:
Robert JL Fraser, Daw Park Jacob Ge
Page 5 and 6: Italy Donato F Altomare, Bari Piero
Page 7 and 8: Fernando Azpiroz, Barcelona Ramon B
Page 10 and 11: Contents BRIEF ARTICLE WJG|www.wjgn
Page 12: Online Submissions: http://www.wjgn
Page 16 and 17: expressed miRNAs including known on
Page 18 and 19: Oh et al [73] have shown that upreg
Page 20 and 21: 5 Bardeesy N, DePinho RA. Pancreati
Page 22 and 23: Fazli L, Motoo Y, Wang Q, Rocchi P,
Page 24 and 25: standard investigation to confirm t
Page 26 and 27: proximity to a T3 tumor or nodules
Page 28 and 29: CONCLUSION Imaging in rectal cancer
Page 31: Ronnekleiv-Kelly SM et al . Palliat
Page 47: Popek S et al . Neoadjuvant vs adju
Page 50 and 51: Online Submissions: http://www.wjgn
Page 52 and 53: esection [19] . Conversely, approxi
Page 54 and 55: that option again, than patients wh
Page 58 and 59: most significant is ensuring oncolo
Page 60 and 61: tive times and concerns over both l
Page 67 and 68: Sharma C et al . Clinical advances
Page 76: Table 10 Published results on lapar
Page 96 and 97: Table 2 Neuronal density and mean a
Page 98 and 99: A D tween ROS production and neutra
Page 100 and 101: troparesis. BMC Gastroenterol 2008;
Page 104 and 105: Table 2 Details of patients who nee
Page 106 and 107:
Table 5 Lab data and performance st
Page 108 and 109:
W168-W176 4 Slakey DP, Klein AS, Ve
Page 112 and 113:
A BMI 28 26 24 22 20 18 40-49 50-59
Page 114 and 115:
A Age (yr) 90 80 70 60 50 40 P < 0.
Page 116 and 117:
Part1. Diagnosis and classification
Page 118 and 119:
(25-OHD) and in the kidneys to form
Page 120 and 121:
of osteomalacia with oral 25-hydrox
Page 122 and 123:
patic parenchymal dissection as wel
Page 124 and 125:
Table 1 Comparisons of three routes
Page 126 and 127:
study demonstrated that the water-j
Page 128 and 129:
It has been recently shown that CD1
Page 130 and 131:
A B C Count Count 200 160 120 80 40
Page 132 and 133:
and progenitor cells. Lgr5 (leucine
Page 134 and 135:
J Gastroenterol 2011; 17(7): 938-94
Page 136 and 137:
A SS 0 1023 ed into the abdominal c
Page 138 and 139:
A B C D for more scientists. Cell t
Page 140 and 141:
marrow as a potential source of hep
Page 142 and 143:
INTRODUCTION Hepatocellular carcino
Page 145 and 146:
A C Liu QY et al . Primary clear ce
Page 147 and 148:
Liu QY et al . Primary clear cell c
Page 149 and 150:
Online Submissions: http://www.wjgn
Page 151 and 152:
Instructions to authors Indexed and
Page 153 and 154:
Instructions to authors uniform leg
Page 155:
Instructions to authors Language ev
show all

Management of stage Ⅳ rectal cancer - World Journal of ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?