Page 157 - Read Online

Westwood et al. Mini-invasive Surg 2018;2:38 I http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2574-1225.2018.50 Page 9 of 11

In summary, pathologists are able to assess the quality of surgery of anterior resections by assessing the
plane of mesorectal excision, involvement of the CRM and presence of intraoperative perforations. In APE
specimens, the same quality markers are used with the addition of an assessment of the plane of sphincter/
levator dissection as a surrogate marker for surgical quality in the critical area commonly associated with
CRM involvement/perforations. Feedback on the planes of surgery, as well as other important prognostic
information, is essential to the MDT and can benefit not only surgeons, but oncologists and radiologists.
Pathologists must provide detailed, accurate reports encompassing all important prognostic markers as
well as an evaluation of surgical quality. Consistent feedback to the colorectal MDT is essential to further
improve outcomes for patients with rectal cancer.

DECLARATIONS
Author’s contributions
Equally involved with the literature research and manuscript writing: Westwood AC, West NP

Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.

Financial support and sponsorship
Westwood AC is supported by Cancer Research UK and the Pathological Society of Great Britain and
Ireland pre-doctoral research Bursary. West NP is supported by Yorkshire Cancer Research.

Conflicts of interest
The two authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.

Consent for publication
Not applicable.

Copyright
© The Author(s) 2018.

REFERENCES
1. Heald R, Ryall R. Recurrence and survival after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet 1986;327:1479-82.
2. Bosch SL, Nagtegaal ID. The importance of the pathologist’s role in assessment of the quality of the mesorectum. Curr Colorectal
Cancer Rep 2012;8:90-8.
3. Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJ, Marijnen CA, van Krieken JH, Quirke P. Low rectal cancer: a call for a change of approach in
abdominoperineal resection. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:9257-64.
4. Birbeck KF, Macklin CP, Tiffin NJ, Parsons W, Dixon MF, et al. Rates of circumferential resection margin involvement vary between
surgeons and predict outcomes in rectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg 2002;235:449.
5. Loughrey M, Quirke P, Shepherd N. Standards and datasets for reporting cancers: dataset for colorectal cancer. London: The Royal
College of Pathologists; 2017.
6. Marr R, Birbeck K, Garvican J, Macklin CP, Tiffin NJ, et al. The modern abdominoperineal excision: the next challenge after total
mesorectal excision. Ann Surg 2005;242:74.
7. West NP, Finan PJ, Anderin C, Lindholm J, Holm T, et al. Evidence of the oncologic superiority of cylindrical abdominoperineal
excision for low rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:3517-22.
8. Salerno G, Chandler I, Wotherspoon A, Thomas K, Moran B, et al. Sites of surgical waisting in the abdominoperineal specimen. Br J
Surg 2008;95:1147-54.
9. Quirke P, Dixon M, Durdey P, Williams N. Local recurrence of rectal adenocarcinoma due to inadequate surgical resection:
histopathological study of lateral tumour spread and surgical excision. Lancet 1986;328:996-9.
10. Mercury Study Group. Diagnostic accuracy of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in predicting curative resection of rectal
cancer: prospective observational study. BMJ 2006;333:779.