A multicenter experience with peri-rectal tumors: The risk of local recurrence. Issue 6 (June 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Buchs, N.C.; Gosselink, M.P.; Scarpa, C.R.; Ris, F.; Saiji, E.; Bloemendaal, A.L.A.; van Onkelen, R.S.; Guy, R.J.; Schouten, W.R.; Roche, B.; George, B.D.
• Is Part Of: European journal of surgical oncology. Volume 42:Issue 6(2016:Jun.)
• Page Start: 817
• Page End: 822
• Publication Date: 2016-06
• Subjects: Retrorectal -- Tumors -- Presacral -- Surgery -- Recurrence -- Outcomes -- Ischiorectal; Oncology -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Medical Oncology -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- surgery -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Cancérologie -- Périodiques; Oncologie; Chirurgie (geneeskunde); Electronic journals; Electronic journals -- Sciences; Electronic journals -- Medicine; Electronic journals; 616.994059005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.02.018
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0748-7983

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Peri-rectal tumors are rare and their management is challenging, especially when presenting with local recurrence. The aim of the current study was to report a multicenter series of peri-rectal tumors, focusing on the risk of recurrence. Material and methods: From 1994 to 2014, patients with peri-rectal tumors from three different centers were retrospectively analyzed. Sixty-two patients were identified and divided into two groups; Group 1: patients who presented with local recurrence at follow-up (n = 9, recurrence rate: 14.5%), and Group 2: patients without recurrence (n = 53). Results: In Group 1, there were initially more patients with symptoms of a perineal mass (44.4% vs. 12.2%; p = 0.04), more malignant tumors (55.6% vs. 15.1%; p = 0.02), and larger lesions (+2.6 cm; p = 0.004). Incomplete resection was also more frequent in Group 1 (44.4% vs. 3.8%; p = 0.003). Eight patients with recurrence had further surgery, whilst one patient had radiological recurrence and was treated medically. Among the eight re-resections, five patients remain disease-free; two have had further recurrences and have had palliative treatment, whilst another has had a further resection and remains disease-free. Conclusions: Peri-rectal tumors are uncommon and there is no consensus on best management. Based on this large multicenter series, several risk factors seem to be associated with local recurrence, namely patient- (discovery of a perineal mass), tumor- (malignant and large lesion), and surgery-related (incomplete resection). Clinical follow-up should be adapted according to these factors.