RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a radical procedure involving multi-visceral resection for locally advanced pelvic malignancies. Such radical surgery is associated with prolonged operating theater time and hospital stay, as well as a substantial risk of postoperative complications, and therefore significant financial cost. This study aimed to comprehensively detail the inpatient cost of PE at a specialist center in the Australian public sector. METHODS: A retrospective costing review of consecutive PE operations at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney between March 2014 and June 2022 was performed. Clinical data were extracted from a prospectively maintained database, and in-hospital costing data were provided by the hospital Performance Unit. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS. RESULTS: Pelvic exenteration was performed for 461 patients, of whom 283 (61 %) had primary or recurrent rectal cancer, 160 (35 %) had primary or recurrent non-rectal cancer, and 18 (4 %) had a benign indication. The median admission cost was $108,259.4 ($86,620.8-$144,429.3) (Australian dollars [AUD]), with the highest costs for staffing followed by the operating room. Overall, admission costs were higher for complete PE (p < 0.001), PE combined with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) (p < 0.001), and older patients (p = 0.006). DISCUSSION: The total admission cost for patients undergoing PE reflects the complexity of the procedure and the multidisciplinary requirement. Patients of advanced age undergoing complete PE and PE combined with CRS incurred greater costs, but the requirement of a sacrectomy, vertical rectus abdominal flap reconstruction, major nerve or vascular excision, or repair were not associated with higher overall cost in the multivariate analysis.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The views of patients and carers are important for the development of research priorities. This study aimed to determine and compare the top research priorities of cancer patients and carers with those of multidisciplinary clinicians with expertise in prehabilitation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study surveyed patients recovering from cancer surgery at a major tertiary hospital in Sydney, Australia, and/or their carers between March and July 2023. Consenting patients and carers were provided a list of research priorities according to clinicians with expertise in prehabilitation, as determined in a recent International Delphi study. Participants were asked to rate the importance of each research priority using a 5-item Likert scale (ranging from 1 = very high research priority to 5 = very low research priority). RESULTS: A total of 101 patients and 50 carers participated in this study. Four areas were identified as research priorities, achieving consensus of highest importance (> 70% rated as "high" or "very high" priority) by patients, carers, and clinical experts. These were "optimal composition of prehabilitation programs" (77% vs. 82% vs. 88%), "effect of prehabilitation on surgical outcomes" (85% vs. 90% vs. 95%), "effect of prehabilitation on functional outcomes" (83% vs. 86% vs. 79%), and "effect of prehabilitation on patient reported outcomes" (78% vs. 84% vs. 79%). Priorities that did not reach consensus of high importance by patients despite reaching consensus of highest importance by experts included "identifying populations most likely to benefit from prehabilitation" (70% vs. 76% vs. 90%) and "defining prehabilitation core outcome measures" (66% vs. 74% vs. 87%). "Prehabilitation during neoadjuvant therapies" reached consensus of high importance by patients but not by experts or carers (81% vs. 68% vs. 69%). CONCLUSION: This study delineated the primary prehabilitation research priorities as determined by patients and carers, against those previously identified by clinicians with expertise in prehabilitation. It is recommended that subsequent high-quality research and resource allocation be directed towards these highlighted areas of importance.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Locally advanced or recurrent prostate cancer which invades adjacent pelvic organs, bone or other soft tissue structures is a rare situation. This study aimed to report the outcomes of ten consecutive patients who underwent total pelvic exenteration for prostate cancer at a high-volume specialist centre. Two patients had locally advanced primary tumours, while eight had locally recurrent prostate cancer. Median operating time, blood loss, ICU stay, and hospital stay was 12.2 h (range 9.6-13.8), 2500 ml (500-3000), 4.5 days (2-7) and 36 days (21-78), respectively. There was no inpatient, 30-day, or 90-day mortality. Six patients developed a Clavien-Dindo III complication. R0 resection was achieved in eight patients. Median follow up was 16 months (range 2-77). At last follow up, five patients were alive without disease. These findings suggest that pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and recurrent prostate cancer is safe and represents a potentially curative treatment option for highly selected patients.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To establish globally applicable benchmark outcomes for pelvic exenteration (PE) in patients with locally advanced primary (LARC) and recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC), using outcomes achieved at highly specialised centres. BACKGROUND DATA: PE is established as the standard of care for selected patients with LARC and LRRC. There are currently no available benchmarks against which surgical performance in PE can be compared for audit and quality improvement. METHODS: This international multicentre retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing PE for LARC or LRRC at 16 highly experienced centres between 2018 and 2023. Ten outcome benchmarks were established in a lower-risk subgroup. Benchmarks were defined by the 75th percentile of the results achieved at the individual centres. RESULTS: 763 patients underwent PE, of which 464 patients (61%) had LARC and 299 (39%) had LRRC. 544 patients (71%) who met predefined lower risk criteria formed the benchmark cohort. For LARC patients, the calculated benchmark threshold for major complication rate was ≤44%; comprehensive complication index (CCI): ≤30.2; 30-day mortality rate: 0%; 90-day mortality rate: ≤4.3%; R0 resection rate: ≥79%. For LRRC patients, the calculated benchmark threshold for major complication rate was ≤53%; CCI: ≤34.1; 30-day mortality rate: 0%; 90-day mortality rate: ≤6%; R0 resection rate: ≥77%. CONCLUSIONS: The reported benchmarks for PE in patients with LARC and LRRC represent the best available care for this patient group globally and can be used for rigorous assessment of surgical quality and to facilitate quality improvement initiatives at international exenteration centres.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Over the last decade, the number of prehabilitation randomised controlled trials (RCTs) has increased significantly. Therefore, this review aimed to describe the outcomes reported in prehabilitation RCTs in patients undergoing cancer surgery. METHODS: A search was conducted in Embase, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, The Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception to July 2021. We included RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of preoperative exercise, nutrition, and psychological interventions on postoperative complications and length of hospital stay in adult oncology patients who underwent thoracic and gastrointestinal cancer surgery. The verbatim outcomes reported in each article were extracted, and each outcome was assessed to determine whether it was defined and measured using a validated tool. Verbatim outcomes were grouped into standardized outcomes and categorized into domains. The quality of outcome reporting in each identified article was assessed using the Harman tool (score range 0-6, where 0 indicated the poorest quality). RESULTS: A total of 74 RCTs were included, from which 601 verbatim outcomes were extracted. Only 110 (18.3%) of the verbatim outcomes were defined and 270 (44.9%) were labeled as either "primary" or "secondary" outcomes. Verbatim outcomes were categorized into 119 standardized outcomes and assigned into one of five domains (patient-reported outcomes, surgical outcomes, physical/functional outcomes, disease activity, and intervention delivery). Surgical outcomes were the most common outcomes reported (n = 71 trials, 95.9%). The overall quality of the reported outcomes was poor across trials (median score: 2.0 [IQR = 0.00-3.75]). CONCLUSIONS: Prehabilitation RCTs display considerable heterogeneity in outcome reporting, and low outcome reporting quality. The development of standardized core outcome sets may help improve article quality and enhance the clinical utility of prehabilitation following cancer surgery.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: A key component of preoperative preparation for pelvic exenteration surgery is the development of an operative plan in a multidisciplinary setting based on the extent of local tumor invasion on preoperative imaging. Changes to the extent of resection or operative plan may occur intraoperatively based on intraoperative findings. OBJECTIVE: To report the frequency and extent of intraoperative deviation from the planned extent of resection during pelvic exenteration for locally recurrent rectal cancer and determine whether this resulted in a more or less radical resection. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTINGS: A high-volume pelvic exenteration center. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent pelvic exenteration for locally recurrent rectal cancer between January 2015 and December 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency and extent of intraoperative deviation from the planned extent of resection, R0 resection rate. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-six patients underwent pelvic exenteration for locally recurrent rectal cancer, of whom 110 (81%) had R0 resection margins. Twelve patients were excluded because of missing information, and 49 patients (40%) had a change to the operative plan. Operative changes were major in 30 patients (61%), more radical in 40 patients (82%), and margin relevant in 24 patients (49%). In patients in whom there was a change to the operative plan and R0 resection was achieved, the median distance to a relevant margin was 2.5 mm (range, 0.1-10 mm). Of 8 patients with a change in operative plan and R1 resection, 3 were margin relevant, of whom all were considered major, and 2 were more radical and 1 was less radical. LIMITATIONS: Generalizability outside of specialist units may be limited. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative changes to the planned extent of resection occur commonly and most often result in an unanticipated major or more radical resection. Such changes may contribute to high rates of R0 resection margins in specialist pelvic exenteration units that use an ultraradical approach in these patients. See Video Abstract . IMPACTO DE LA TOMA DE DECISIONES INTRAOPERATORIA SOBRE EL ESTADO DEL MARGEN PATOLGICO EN PACIENTES SOMETIDOS A EXENTERACIN PLVICA POR RECURRENCIA LOCAL EN CNCER DE RECTO: ANTECEDENTES:Un componente clave de la preparación preoperatoria para exenteración pélvica es el desarrollo de un plan quirúrgico en un entorno multidisciplinario, basado en el grado de invasión tumoral local en las imágenes preoperatorias. Es posible que se produzcan cambios intraoperatorios en la extensión de la resección o en el plan quirúrgico según los hallazgos intraoperatorios.OBJETIVO:Informar la frecuencia y la extensión de la desviación intraoperatoria de la extensión planificada de la resección durante la exenteración pélvica para el cáncer de recto localmente recurrente, y si esto resultó en una resección más o menos radical.DISEÑO:Estudio observacional retrospectivo.ESCENARIO:Un centro de exenteración pélvica de alto volumen.PACIENTES:Pacientes sometidos a exenteración pélvica por cáncer de recto localmente recurrente entre enero de 2015 y diciembre de 2020.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Frecuencia y extensión de desviación intraoperatoria de la extensión planeada de resección, tasa de resección R0.RESULTADOS:136 pacientes fueron sometidos a exenteración pélvica por cáncer de recto localmente recurrente, de los cuales 110 (81%) tuvieron márgenes de resección R0. 12 pacientes fueron excluidos por falta de información y 49 pacientes (40%) tuvieron un cambio en el plan quirúrgico. Los cambios operatorios fueron mayores en 30 pacientes (61%), más radicales en 40 pacientes (82%) y con relevancia sobre márgenes en 24 pacientes (49%). En los pacientes en los que hubo un cambio en el plan quirúrgico y se logró la resección R0, la distancia mediana hasta un margen relevante fue de 2.5 mm (rango 0.1-10 mm). De ocho pacientes con un cambio en el plan quirúrgico y resección R1, tres tuvieron relevancia sobre márgenes de los cuales todos se consideraron mayores, dos fueron más radicales y uno fue menos radical.LIMITACIONES:La generalización fuera de las unidades especializadas puede ser limitada.CONCLUSIONES:Los cambios intraoperatorios en la extensión planificada de la resección ocurren comúnmente y con mayor frecuencia resultan en una resección mayor imprevista y más radical. Dichos cambios pueden contribuir a altas tasas de márgenes de resección R0 en unidades especializadas en EP que emplean un enfoque ultrarradical en estos pacientes. (Traducción-Dr. Jorge Silva Velazco ).

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

According to Hohenberger's original description, complete mesocolic excision for colon cancer involves precise dissection of the avascular embryonic plane between the parietal retroperitoneum and visceral peritoneum of the mesocolon. This ensures mesocolic integrity, access to high ligation of the supplying vessels at their origin and an associated extended lymphadenectomy. Results from centres which have adopted this approach routinely have demonstrated that oncological outcomes can be improved by the rigorous implementation of established principles of cancer surgery. Meticulous anatomical dissection along embryonic planes is a well-established principle of precision cancer surgery used routinely by the specialist colorectal surgeon. Therefore, the real question concerns the need for true central vascular ligation and associated extended (D3) lymphadenectomy or otherwise, particularly along the superior mesenteric vessels when performing a right colectomy. Whether this approach results in improved overall or disease-free survival remains unclear and its role remains controversial particularly given the potential for significant morbidity associated with a more extensive central vascular dissection. Current literature is limited by considerable bias, as well as inconsistent and variable terminology, and the results of established randomized trials are awaited. As a result of the current state of equipoise, various national guidelines have disparate recommendations as to when complete mesocolic excision should be performed if at all. This article aims to review the rationale for and technical aspects of complete mesocolic excision, summarize available short and long term outcome data and address current controversies.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

AIM: There is increasing research interest in pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer. Heterogeneity in outcome reporting can prevent meaningful interpretation and valid synthesis of pooled data and meta-analyses. The aim of this study was to assess homogeneity in outcome measures in the current pelvic exenteration literature. METHOD: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL and Scopus databases were searched from 1990 to 25 April 2023 to identify studies reporting outcomes of pelvic exenteration for locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer. All reported outcomes were extracted, merged with those of similar meaning and assigned a domain. RESULTS: Of 4137 abstracts screened, 156 studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 2765 outcomes were reported, of which 17% were accompanied by a definition. There were 1157 unique outcomes, merged into 84 standardized outcomes and assigned one of seven domains. The most reported domains were complications (147 studies, 94%), survival (127, 81%) and surgical outcomes (123, 79%). Resection margins were reported in 122 studies (78%): the definition of a clear resection margin was not provided in 45 studies (37%), it was unclear in 11 studies (9%) and not specified beyond microscopically 'clear' or 'negative' in 31 (28%). Measurements of 2, 1, 0.5 mm and any healthy tissue were all used to define R0 margins. CONCLUSION: There is significant heterogeneity in outcome measurement and reporting in the current pelvic exenteration literature, raising concerns about the validity of comparative or collaborative studies between centres and meta-analyses. Coordinated international collaboration is required to define core outcome sets and benchmarks.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a potentially curative, ultra-radical surgical procedure for the treatment of advanced pelvic tumours, which involves surgical resection of multiple pelvic organs. Delivering such a complex low-volume, high-cost surgical program presents a number of unique health management challenges, and requires an organisation-wide approach involving both clinical and administrative teams. In contrast to the United Kingdom and France, where PE services have been historically decentralised, a centralised approach was developed early on in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) with referral of these complex patients to a small number of quaternary centres. The PE program at the authors' institution was established in 1994 and has since evolved into the highest volume PE centre in the ANZ region and the largest single institution experience globally. These achievements have required navigation of specific funding and management issues, supported from inception by a proactive and collaborative relationship with hospital administration and management. The comprehensive state-wide quaternary referral model that has been developed has subsequently been successfully applied to other complex surgical services at the authors' institution, as well as by more recently established PE centres in Australia. This article aims to summarise the authors' experience with establishing and expanding this service and the lessons learned from a health management perspective.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Chronic fistulating pelvic sepsis is an uncommon complication of multimodal treatment of visceral pelvic tumours. Radical multi-visceral resection is reserved for patients with persistent, debilitating symptoms despite less invasive treatments and for which there is minimal published data. This study aimed to report the rates of morbidity and long-term sepsis control after pelvic exenteration for chronic fistulating pelvic sepsis. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a high-volume pelvic exenteration referral centre. Patients who underwent pelvic exenteration for chronic fistulating pelvic sepsis between September 1994 and January 2023 after previous treatment for pelvic malignancy were included. Data relating to postoperative morbidity, mortality and the rate of recurrent pelvic sepsis or fistulae were retrospectively collected. RESULTS: 19 patients who underwent radical resection for chronic fistulating pelvic sepsis after previous pelvic cancer treatment were included. 11 patients were male (58 %) and median age was 62 years (range 42-79). Previously treated rectal (8 patients, 42 %), prostate (5, 26 %) and cervical cancer (5, 26 %) were most common. 18 patients (95 %) had previously received high-dose pelvic radiotherapy, and 14 (74 %) had required surgical resection. Total pelvic exenteration was performed in 47 % of patients, total cystectomy in 68 % and major pubic bone resection in 37 %. There was no intraoperative or postoperative mortality. Major complication rate was 32 %. 12-month readmission rate was 42 %. At last follow up, 74 % had no signs or symptoms of persisting pelvic sepsis. CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic exenteration for refractory pelvic sepsis following treatment of malignancy is safe and effective in selected patients.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

This article describes a posterior trans-sacral approach to the presacral space. This is an important technique in contemporary colorectal surgical practice for resection of presacral tumours, and less commonly to allow access for rectal sleeve advancement, segmental resection of the lower rectum (rarely indicated in the era of total mesorectal excision and trans-anal techniques), drainage of supralevator sepsis and resection of extensive ischiorectal fossa tumours.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Pelvic exenteration (PE) is an ultra-radical procedure performed for primary or recurrent malignancies confined to the pelvis. Health outcomes for rural Australian populations are generally inferior compared to those from metropolitan centres, however, the effect of geographical location on outcomes following PE is poorly defined. The aim of this study was to investigate how geographical location affects oncological, quality of life (QoL) and survival outcomes following PE. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing PE between 1994 and 2022 at a single centre were included. Patient post codes were linked with the Australian Statistical Geography Standard Remoteness Structure to stratify patients into five groups based on the geographical location of their residence. Primary outcome measures included patient survival, QoL and oncological outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 953 patients were included, of which 626 (65.7%) were from major cities, 227 (23.8%) inner regional, 84 (8.8%) outer regional, 9 (0.9%) remote, and 7 (0.7%) very remote areas. Rural patients were more likely to undergo PE for primary rectal cancer (p = 002) and less likely for recurrent, non-rectal carcinoma (p = 0.027). Rural patients less frequently had health insurance (p < 0.001) but were more likely to have undergone neoadjuvant radiotherapy (p = 0.022). No difference in length-of-admission, in-hospital complication rates, QoL at 36 months or survival was observed between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite geographical disparities, rural populations undergoing PE achieved equally favourable outcomes as populations from metropolitan areas. Enhancing access to specialised care may facilitate better outcomes of patients residing in regional and remote areas.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Pelvic exenteration (PE) surgery represents the only potentially curative treatment option for patients with locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer (LARRC). Given the potential morbidity, whether or not PE should be recommended for an individual patient presents a major decisional conflict. This study aims to identify the outcomes of PE for which there is consensus among patients, carers and clinicians regarding their importance in guiding treatment decision-making, and to develop a risk prediction tool which predicts these outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will be conducted at a specialist PE centre, and employ a mixed-methods study design, divided into three distinct phases. In phase 1, outcomes of PE will be identified through a comprehensive systematic review of the literature (phase 1a), followed by exploration of the experiences of individuals who have undergone PE for LARRC and their carers (phase 1b, target sample size 10-20 patients and 5-10 carers). In phase 2, a survey of patients, their carers and clinicians will be conducted using Delphi methodology to explore consensus around the outcomes of highest priority and the level of influence each outcome should have on treatment decision-making. In phase 3 a, risk prediction tool will be developed using data from a single PE referral centre (estimated sample size 500 patients) to predict priority outcomes using multivariate modelling, and externally validated using data from an international PE collaboration. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted for phases 1 and 2 (X22-0422 and 2022/ETH02659) and for maintenance of the database used in phase 3 (X13-0283 and HREC/13/RPAH/504). Informed consent will be obtained from participants in phases 1b and 2; a waiver of consent for secondary use of data in phase 3 will be sought. Study results will be submitted for publication in international and/or national peer reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022351909.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Salvage surgery is the only potentially curative treatment option for recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the anus. Where adjacent pelvic viscera, soft tissues, and bone are involved, pelvic exenteration with a wide perineal excision may be required to ensure clear surgical margins and increase the likelihood of long-term survival. OBJECTIVE: To report oncological, morbidity, and quality-of-life outcomes of pelvic exenteration for anal squamous cell carcinoma. DESIGN: Cohort study with retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a high-volume pelvic exenteration center. PATIENTS: Those who underwent pelvic exenteration for anal squamous cell carcinoma between 1994 and 2022. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Local recurrence-free and overall survival, intraoperative and postoperative complication rates, R0 resection rate, and long-term quality-of-life outcomes. RESULTS: Of 958 patients who underwent pelvic exenteration, 66 (6.9%) had anal squamous cell carcinoma. Thirty-two patients (48.5%) were male and the median age was 57 years (range, 31-79). Ten patients (15%) had primary anal squamous cell carcinoma, 49 (74%) had a recurrent tumor, and 7 (11%) had a re-recurrent tumor. Twenty-two patients (33%) and 16 patients (24%) had a major complication and unplanned return to the operating theater, respectively. Of the 62 patients who underwent pelvic exenteration with curative intent, 50 (81%) had R0 resection, and the 5-year overall and local recurrence-free survival rates were 41% and 37%, respectively. R0 resection was associated with a higher 5-year overall survival (50% vs 8%, p < 0.001). The mental health component scores and several individual quality-of-life domains presented improved trajectories postoperatively (all p values <0.05). LIMITATIONS: The generalizability of the findings outside specialist pelvic exenteration centers may be limited. CONCLUSIONS: Morbidity, long-term survival, and quality-of-life outcomes after pelvic exenteration for anal squamous cell carcinoma are comparable to published outcomes of pelvic exenteration for other tumor types. EXENTERACIN PLVICA POR CARCINOMA EPIDERMOIDE DE ANO RESULTADOS ONCOLGICOS, DE MORBILIDAD Y DE CALIDAD DE VIDA: ANTECEDENTES:La cirugía de rescate es la única opción de tratamiento potencialmente curativa para el carcinoma de células escamosas del ano recurrente. Cuando están involucradas vísceras pélvicas, tejidos blandos y huesos adyacentes, puede ser necesaria una exenteración pélvica con una escisión perineal amplia para asegurar márgenes quirúrgicos claros y aumentar la probabilidad de supervivencia a largo plazo.OBJETIVO:Informar sobre los resultados oncológicos, de morbilidad y de calidad de vida de la exenteración pélvica por carcinoma anal de células escamosas.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohortes con análisis retrospectivo de datos recogidos prospectivamente.ENTORNO CLINICO:Este estudio se realizó en un centro de exenteración pélvica de alto volumen.PACIENTES:Aquellos que se sometieron a exenteración pélvica por carcinoma anal de células escamosas entre 1994 y 2022.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACIÓN:Supervivencia global y libre de recidiva local, tasas de complicaciones intraoperatorias y posoperatorias, tasa de resección R0 y resultados de calidad de vida a largo plazo.RESULTADOS:De 958 pacientes que se sometieron a exenteración pélvica, 66 (6,9%) tenían carcinoma anal de células escamosas. 32 pacientes (48,5%) eran varones y la mediana de edad fue de 57 años (rango 31-79). 10 pacientes (15%) tenían carcinoma anal primario de células escamosas, 49 (74%) tenían un tumor recurrente y 7 (11%) tenían una segunda recurrencia. 22 (33%) y 16 pacientes (24%) tuvieron una complicación mayor y regreso no planificado al quirófano, respectivamente. De los 62 pacientes que se sometieron a una exenteración pélvica con intención curativa, 50 (81%) tuvieron una resección R0, las tasas de supervivencia global y libre de recidiva local a los 5 años fueron del 41% y el 37%, respectivamente. La resección R0 se asoció con una mayor supervivencia general a los 5 años (50% frente a 8%, p < 0,001). Las puntuaciones del componente de salud mental y varios dominios de calidad de vida individuales presentaron trayectorias mejoradas después de la operación (todos los valores de p < 0,05).LIMITACIONES:La generalización de los hallazgos fuera de los centros especializados en exenteración pélvica puede ser limitada.CONCLUSIONES:Los resultados de morbilidad, supervivencia a largo plazo y calidad de vida después de la EP para el carcinoma anal de células escamosas son comparables a los resultados publicados de la exenteración pélvica para otros tipos de tumores. (Traducción-Dr. Ingrid Melo ).