Transanal endoscopic microsurgery resection of rectal tumors: outcomes and recommendations.

PURPOSE: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery provides a minimally invasive alternative to radical surgery for excision of benign and malignant rectal tumors. The purpose of this study was to review our experience with transanal endoscopic microsurgery to clarify its role in the treatment of different types of rectal pathology. METHODS: A prospective database documented all patients undergoing transanal endoscopic microsurgery from October 1996 through June 2008. We analyzed patient and operative factors, complications, and tumor recurrence. For recurrence analysis, we excluded patients with fewer than 6 months of follow-up, previous excisions, known metastases at initial presentation, and those who underwent immediate radical resection following transanal endoscopic microsurgery. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-nine patients underwent transanal endoscopic microsurgery for benign (n = 158) and malignant (n = 111) tumors. Procedure-related complications (21%) included urinary retention (10.8%), fecal incontinence (4.1%), fever (3.8%), suture line dehiscence (1.5%), and bleeding (1.5%). Local recurrence rates for 121 benign and 83 malignant tumors were 5% for adenomas, 9.8% for T1 adenocarcinoma, 23.5% for T2 adenocarcinoma, 100% for T3 adenocarcinoma, and 0% for carcinoid tumors. All 6 (100%) recurrent adenomas were retreated with endoscopic techniques, and 8 of 17 (47%) recurrent adenocarcinomas underwent salvage procedures with curative intent. CONCLUSIONS: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery is a safe and effective method for excision of benign and malignant rectal tumors. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery can be offered for (1) curative resection of benign tumors, carcinoid tumors, and select T1 adenocarcinomas, (2) histopathologic staging in indeterminate cases, and (3) palliative resection in patients medically unfit or unwilling to undergo radical resection.

Bone regeneration and stem cells.

?  Introduction ?  Bone fracture healing and healing problems ?  Biomaterial scaffolds and tissue engineering in bone formation -  Bone tissue engineering -  Biomaterial scaffolds -  Synthetic scaffolds -  Micro- and nanostructural properties of scaffolds -  Conclusion ?  Mesenchymal stem cells and osteogenesis -  Bone tissue -  Origin of osteoblasts -  Isolation and characterization of bone marrow derived MSC -  In vitro differentiation of MSC into osteoblast lineage cells -  In vivo differentiation of MSC into bone -  Factors and pathways controlling osteoblast differentiation of hMSC -  Defining the relationship between osteoblast and adipocyte differentiation from MSC -  MSC and sex hormones -  Effect of aging on osteoblastogenesis -  Conclusion ?  Embryonic, foetal and adult stem cells in osteogenesis -  Cell-based therapies for bone -  Specific features of bone cells needed to be advantageous for clinical use -  Development of therapeutic biological agents -  Clinical application concerns -  Conclusion ?  Platelet-rich plasma (PRP), growth factors and osteogenesis -  PRP effects in vitro on the cells involved in bone repair -  PRP effects on osteoblasts -  PRP effects on osteoclasts -  PRP effects on endothelial cells -  PRP effects in vivo on experimental animals -  The clinical use of PRP for bone repair -  Non-union -  Distraction osteogenesis -  Spinal fusion -  Foot and ankle surgery -  Total knee arthroplasty -  Odontostomatology and maxillofacial surgery -  Conclusion ?  Molecular control of osteogenesis -  TGF-β signalling -  FGF signalling -  IGF signalling -  PDGF signalling -  MAPK signalling pathway -  Wnt signalling pathway -  Hedgehog signalling -  Notch signalling -  Ephrin signalling -  Transcription factors regulating osteoblast differentiation -  Conclusion ?  Summary This invited review covers research areas of central importance for orthopaedic and maxillofacial bone tissue repair, including normal fracture healing and healing problems, biomaterial scaffolds for tissue engineering, mesenchymal and foetal stem cells, effects of sex steroids on mesenchymal stem cells, use of platelet-rich plasma for tissue repair, osteogenesis and its molecular markers. A variety of cells in addition to stem cells, as well as advances in materials science to meet specific requirements for bone and soft tissue regeneration by addition of bioactive molecules, are discussed.

Endocavitary contact radiation therapy for ultrasonographically staged T1 N0 and T2 N0 rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing endocavitary contact radiation therapy (ECR) for stage I rectal cancer. METHODS: A database of patients treated with ECR for biopsy-proven rectal adenocarcinoma from July 1986 to June 2006 was reviewed retrospectively. Only patients with primary, non-metastatic, ultrasonographically staged T1 N0 and T2 N0 cancer who had no adjuvant treatment were included. Patients received a median of 90 (range 60-190) Gy contact radiation, delivered transanally by a 50-kV X-ray tube in two to five fractions. RESULTS: Of 149 patients, 77 (40 T1, 37 T2) met the inclusion criteria. Median age was 74 (range 38-104) years, and median follow-up 69 (range 10-219) months. ECR failed in 21 patients (27 per cent) (persistent disease, four; recurrence, 17), of whom ten remained disease free after salvage therapy. The estimated 5-year disease-free survival rate was 74 (95 per cent confidence interval 63 to 83) per cent after ECR alone, and 87 (76 to 93) per cent when survival after salvage therapy for recurrence was included. CONCLUSION: ECR is a minimally invasive treatment option for early-stage rectal cancer. However, similar to other local therapies, ECR has a worse oncological outcome than radical surgery.

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus conventional transanal excision for patients with early rectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEMS) with conventional transanal excision (TAE) in terms of the quality of resection, local recurrence, and survival rates in patients with stage I rectal cancer. BACKGROUND: Although TEMS is often considered a superior surgical technique to TAE, it is poorly suited for excising tumors in the lower third of the rectum. Such tumors may confer a worse prognosis. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed information on all patients with stage pT1 and pT2 rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent local excision from 1997 through mid-2006. We excluded patients with node-positive, metastatic, recurrent, previously irradiated, or snare-excised tumors. RESULTS: Our study included 42 TEMS and 129 TAE patients. We found no significant differences in patient characteristics, adjuvant therapy, tumor stage, or adverse histopathologic features. In the TAE group, 52 (40%) of tumors were <5 cm from the anal verge (AV); in the TEMS group, only 1 (2%) (P = 0.0001). Surgical margins were less often positive in the TEMS group (2%) than in the TAE group (16%) (P = 0.017). For patients with tumors > or =5 cm from the AV, the estimated 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was similar between the TEMS group (84.1%) and the TAE group (76.1%) (P = 0.651). But within the TAE group, the estimated 5-year DFS rate was better for patients with tumors > or =5 cm from the AV (76.1%) vs. <5 cm from the AV (60.5%) (P = 0.029). In our multivariate analysis, the tumor distance from the anal verge, the resection margin status, the T stage, and the use of adjuvant therapy--but not the surgical technique (i.e., TEMS or TAE) itself--were independent predictors of local recurrence and DFS. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of resection is better with TEMS than with TAE. However, the apparently better oncologic outcomes with TEMS can be partly explained by case selection of lower-risk tumors of the upper rectum.