Pelvic exenteration (PE) is now the standard of care for locally advanced (LARC) and locally recurrent (LRRC) rectal cancer. Reports of the significant short-term morbidity and survival advantage conferred by R0 resection are well established. However, longer-term outcomes are rarely addressed. This systematic review focuses on long-term oncosurgical and quality of life (QoL) outcomes following PE for rectal cancer.

A systematic review of the PubMed®, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE® and Embase® databases was conducted, in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies were included if they reported long-term outcomes following PE for LARC or LRRC. Studies with fewer than 20 patients were excluded.

A total of 25 papers reported outcomes for 5,489 patients. Of these, 4,744 underwent PE for LARC (57.5%) or LRRC (42.5%). R0 resection rates ranged from 23.2% to 98.4% and from 14.9% to 77.8% respectively. The overall morbidity rates were 17.8-87.0%. The median survival ranged from 12.5 to 140.0 months. None of these studies reported functional outcomes and only four studies reported QoL outcomes. Numerous different metrics and timepoints were utilised, with QoL scores frequently returning to baseline by 12 months.

This review demonstrates that PE is safe, with a good prospect of R0 resection and acceptable mortality rates in selected patients. Morbidity rates remain high, highlighting the importance of shared decision making with patients. Longer-term oncological outcomes as well as QoL and functional outcomes need to be addressed in future studies. Development of a core outcomes set would facilitate better reporting in this complex and challenging patient group.

The management of locally advanced rectal cancer involving adjacent organs and extending beyond the surgical planes of total mesorectal excision has evolved over the past few decades both in terms of the effectiveness of preoperative treatments and surgical innovation. The use of a robotic platform is increasing, even in complex surgery such as pelvic exenteration together with the advantages of minimally invasive procedures. However, satisfactory surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes are achieved not only minimizing the impact of a demolitive surgery but also when a multidisciplinary specialized team focuses on experienced surgeons, mandatory rules of surgical oncology, appropriate medical treatments, accurate preoperative planning, and an acceptable quality of life.

Patients requiring a beyond total mesorectal excision (bTME) procedure for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) will probably benefit from enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols. However, implementation of ERAS protocols in such groups of patients is considered challenging. The aims of this study were to evaluate ERAS-related outcomes of patients with LARC or LRRC undergoing bTME and to investigate the possibility of designing a tailored ERAS protocol.

This study was divided into four phases. Phase one consisted of a literature study to compare functional recovery and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing bTME. In phase two, outcomes on ERAS care elements in bTME were retrospectively evaluated. In phase three, differences in ERAS-related outcomes and compliance of the colorectal ERAS protocol in patients who had undergone bTME were studied. In phase four, multidisciplinary team meetings were held to develop an ERAS protocol for bTME patients.

Seven studies reported on ERAS-related outcomes in patients undergoing bTME. Median length of hospital stay was 9-19 days, median stay in the intensive care unit was 2-4 days and 30-day postoperative major complication rates were 22.6%-61.3%. Seventy-five bTME patients were included for retrospective analysis. In these patients, length of stay was 9.0 days and major postoperative complications were observed in 40.0%. The overall ERAS compliance was 44.4%. Compared with the colorectal ERAS protocol, the largest differences in management were observed in the use of epidural anaesthesia, the postoperative use of urethral catheters, oral intake and mobilization.

Patients undergoing bTME for LARC or LRRC are substantially different from patients treated with the colorectal ERAS protocol, regarding ERAS-related outcomes. A tailored, multimodal ERAS protocol with specific modifications was developed by an expert multidisciplinary team for patients undergoing bTME for LARC or LRRC.

Empty pelvis syndrome (EPS) is a significant source of morbidity following pelvic exenteration (PE), but is undefined. EPS outcome reporting and descriptors of radicality of PE are inconsistent; therefore, the best approaches for prevention are unknown. To facilitate future research into EPS, the aim of this study is to define a measurable core outcome set, core descriptor set and written definition for EPS. Consensus on strategies to mitigate EPS was also explored.

Three-stage consensus methodology was used: longlisting with systematic review, healthcare professional event, patient engagement, and Delphi-piloting; shortlisting with two rounds of modified Delphi; and a confirmatory stage using a modified nominal group technique. This included a selection of measurement instruments, and iterative generation of a written EPS definition.

One hundred and three and 119 participants took part in the modified Delphi and consensus meetings, respectively. This encompassed international patient and healthcare professional representation with multidisciplinary input. Seventy statements were longlisted, seven core outcomes (bowel obstruction, enteroperineal fistula, chronic perineal sinus, infected pelvic collection, bowel obstruction, morbidity from reconstruction, re-intervention, and quality of life), and four core descriptors (magnitude of surgery, radiotherapy-induced damage, methods of reconstruction, and changes in volume of pelvic dead space) reached consensus-where applicable, measurement of these outcomes and descriptors was defined. A written definition for EPS was agreed.

EPS is an area of unmet research and clinical need. This study provides an agreed definition and core data set for EPS to facilitate further research.

Innovation in surgery and pelvic oncology have redefined the boundaries of pelvic exenteration for CRC. However, surgical approaches and outcomes following repeat exenteration and reconstruction are not well described. The resulting defect from a second beyond Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) presents a challenge to the reconstructive surgeon. The aim of this study was to explore reconstructive options for patients undergoing repeat beyond TME for recurrent CRC following previous beyond TME and regional reconstruction. MEDLINE and Embase were searched for relevant articles, yielding 2353 studies. However, following full text review and the application of the inclusion criteria, all the studies were excluded. This study demonstrated the lack of reporting on re-do reconstruction techniques following repeat exenteration for recurrent CRC. Based on this finding, we conducted a point-by-point discussion of certain key aspects that should be taken into consideration when approaching this patient cohort.

The empty pelvis syndrome is a significant source of morbidity following pelvic exenteration surgery. It remains poorly defined with research in this field being heterogeneous and of low quality. Furthermore, there has been minimal engagement with patient representatives following pelvic exenteration with respect to the empty pelvic syndrome. 'PelvEx-Beating the empty pelvis syndrome' aims to engage both patient representatives and healthcare professionals to achieve an international consensus on a core outcome set, pathophysiology and mitigation of the empty pelvis syndrome.

A modified-Delphi approach will be followed with a three-stage study design. First, statements will be longlisted using a recent systematic review, healthcare professional event, patient and public engagement, and Delphi piloting. Second, statements will be shortlisted using up to three rounds of online modified Delphi. Third, statements will be confirmed and instruments for measurable statements selected using a virtual patient-representative consensus meeting, and finally a face-to-face healthcare professional consensus meeting.

The University of Southampton Faculty of Medicine ethics committee has approved this protocol, which is registered as a study with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative. Publication of this study will increase the potential for comparative research to further understanding and prevent the empty pelvis syndrome.

NCT05683795.

The implementation of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) has been deemed unfeasible until now because of the heterogeneity of this disease and low caseloads. Since evidence and experience with ERAS principles in colorectal cancer care are increasing, a modified ERAS protocol for this specific group has been developed. The aim of this study is to evaluate the implementation of a tailored ERAS protocol for patients with LARC or LRRC, requiring beyond total mesorectal excision (bTME) surgery.

Patients who underwent a bTME for LARC or LRRC between October 2021 and December 2022 were prospectively studied. All patients were treated in accordance with the ERAS LARRC protocol, which consisted of 39 ERAS care elements specifically developed for patients with LARC and LRRC. One of the most important adaptations of this protocol was the anaesthesia procedure, which involved the use of total intravenous anaesthesia with intravenous (iv) lidocaine, iv methadone, and iv ketamine instead of epidural anaesthesia. The outcomes showed compliance with ERAS care elements, complications, length of stay, and functional recovery. A follow-up was performed at 30 and 90 days post-surgery.

Seventy-two patients were selected, all of whom underwent bTME for either LARC (54.2%) or LRRC (45.8%). Total compliance with the adjusted ERAS protocol was 73.6%. Major complications were present in 12 patients (16.7%), and the median length of hospital stay was 9 days (IQR 6.0-14.0). Patients who received multimodal anaesthesia (75.0%) stayed in the hospital for a median of 7.0 days (IQR 6.8-15.5). These patients received fewer opioids on the first three postoperative days than patients who received epidural analgesia (p < 0.001).

The implementation of the ERAS LARRC protocol seemed successful according to its compliance rate of >70%. Its complication rate was substantially reduced in comparison with the literature. Multimodal anaesthesia is feasible in beyond TME surgery with promising effects on recovery after surgery.

Pelvic exenteration surgery is complex, necessitating co-ordinated multidisciplinary input and improved referral pathways. A state-wide pelvic exenteration multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting was established in SA and the outcomes of this were audited and compared with historical data.

All patients referred for discussion between August 2021 and July 2022 to the SA State-wide Pelvic Exenteration MDT were included in this study. MDT discussion centred around disease resectability, risk versus benefit of surgery, and need for local or interstate referral. Prospective data collection included patient demographics and MDT recommendations of surgery, palliation, or referral. Patients referred for surgery locally or interstate were compared with a retrospective patient cohort treated previously between January and December 2020.

Over 12 months, 91 patients were discussed (including nine multiple times), by a mean of 18 meeting participants each month. Forty-eight patients (58.5%) had primary malignancy, 25 (30.5%) recurrent malignancy, and 9 (11.0%) had non-malignant disease. Colorectal cancer was the most common presentation (56.1%), followed by gynaecological (30.5%) and urological (6.1%) malignancy. Pelvic exenteration surgery was recommended to be performed locally in 53.7% of patients and the remainder for non-surgical treatment, palliation, or re-discussion. During this time, 44 patients underwent surgery locally (versus 34 in 2020) and only 4 referred interstate (versus 8 in 2020).

The establishment of a dedicated state-wide pelvic exenteration MDT has resulted in better coordination of care for patients with locally advanced pelvic malignancy in SA, and significantly reduced the need for interstate referral.

This study aimed to investigate the implementation and pain-related outcomes of a peri-operative pain-management regimen for patients undergoing pelvic exenteration surgery at a university teaching hospital.

This is a single-site prospective observational cohort study involving 100 patients who underwent pelvic exenteration surgery between January 2017 and December 2018. A pain-management algorithm regarding the use of opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia was developed between the departments of anaesthesia, pain management and intensive care. The primary outcomes were: compliance with a pain-treatment algorithm compared with a similar retrospective surgical patient cohort in 2013-2014; and requirements for regular doses of opioid analgesia at discharge, measured in oral morphine equivalent daily dose (oMEDD).

Following the introduction of a pain-management algorithm, regional anaesthesia techniques (spinal anaesthesia, transversus abdominus plane block, preperitoneal catheters or epidural analgesia) were used in 83/98 (84.7%) of the 2017-2018 cohort compared with 13/73 (17.8%) of the 2013-2014 cohort (p < 0.001). There was a reduction in the median dose of opioid analgesics (oMEDD) at time of discharge, from 150 mg (interquartile range [IQR]: 75.0-235.0 mg) in the 2013-2014 cohort to 10 mg (IQR: 0.00-45.0 mg) in the 2017-2018 cohort (p < 0.001). There was no change in pain intensity (assessed using the Verbal Numerical Rating Score) or oMEDD in the first 7 days following surgery.

Since implementation of a novel peri-operative pain-treatment algorithm, the use of opioid-sparing regional techniques and preperitoneal catheters has increased. Additionally, the dose of opioids required at the time of discharge has reduced significantly.

To review the evidence regarding surgical advances in the management of primary locally advanced rectal cancer.

The management of rectal cancer has evolved significantly in recent decades, with improved (neo)adjuvant treatment strategies and enhanced perioperative protocols. Centralization of care for complex, advanced cases has enabled surgeons in these units to undertake more ambitious surgical procedures.

A Pubmed, Ovid, Embase and Cochrane database search was conducted according to the predetermined search strategy. The review protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021245582).

14 studies were identified which reported on the outcomes of 3,188 patients who underwent pelvic exenteration (PE) for primary rectal cancer. 50% of patients had neoadjuvant radiotherapy. 24.2% underwent flap reconstruction, 9.4% required a bony resection and 34 patients underwent a major vascular excision. 73.9% achieved R0 resection, with 33.1% experiencing a major complication. Median length of hospital stay ranged from 13 to 19 days. 1.6% of patients died within 30 days of their operation. Five-year overall survival (OS) rates ranged 29%-78%.

The studies included in our review were mostly single-centre observational studies published prior to the introduction of modern neoadjuvant treatment regimens. It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis on the basis that most were non-randomized, non-comparative studies.

Pelvic exenteration offers patients with locally advanced rectal cancer the chance of long-term survival with acceptable levels of morbidity. Increased experience facilitates more radical procedures, with the introduction of new platforms and/or reconstructive options.

Appropriate patient selection within the context of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) is key to good clinical outcomes. The current evidence base for factors that guide the decision-making process in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is limited to anatomical factors.

A registry-based, prospective cohort study was undertaken of patients referred to our specialist MDT between 2015 and 2019. Data were collected on patients and disease characteristics including performance status, Charlson Comorbidity Index, the English Index of Multiple Deprivation quintiles and MDT treatment decision. Curative treatment was defined as neoadjuvant treatment and surgical resection that would achieve a R0 resection, and/or complete treatment of distant metastatic disease. Palliative treatment was defined as non-surgical treatment.

In total, 325 patients were identified; 72.7% of patients with LARC and 63.6% of patients with LRRC were offered treatment with curative intent (p = 0.08). Patients with poor performance status (PS > 2; p < 0.001), severe comorbidity (p < 0.001), socio-economic deprivation (p = 0.004), a positive predictive circumferential resection margin (p = 0.005) and metastatic disease (p < 0.001) were associated with palliative treatment. Overall survival in the curative cohort was 49 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 32.4-65.5) compared with 12 months (95% CI 9.1-14.9) in the palliative cohort (p < 0.001). The presence of metastatic disease was identified as a prognostic factor for patients undergoing curative treatment (p = 0.05). The only prognostic factor identified in patients treated palliatively was performance status (p < 0.001).

Our study identifies a number of preoperative, prognostic factors that affect MDT decision-making and overall survival.

Pelvic exenteration is a complex operation performed for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic cancers. The goal of surgery is to achieve clear margins, therefore identifying adjacent or involved organs, bone, muscle, nerves and/or vascular structures that may need resection. While these extensive resections are potentially curative, they can be associated with substantial morbidity. Recently, there has been a move to centralize care to specialized units, as this facilitates better multidisciplinary care input. Advancements in pelvic oncology and surgical innovation have redefined the boundaries of pelvic exenterative surgery. Combined with improved neoadjuvant therapies, advances in diagnostics, and better reconstructive techniques have provided quicker recovery and better quality of life outcomes, with improved survival This article provides highlights of the current management of advanced pelvic cancers in terms of surgical strategy and potential future developments.