Skip to content

Advertisement

World Journal of Surgical Oncology

What do you think about BMC? Take part in

Open Access

Rectal cancer surgery in older people does not increase postoperative complications - a retrospective analysis

  • Jagdeep Singh1,
  • Anton Stift1,
  • Sarah Brus1,
  • Katharina Kosma1,
  • Martina Mittlböck2 and
  • Stefan Riss1Email author
World Journal of Surgical Oncology201412:355

https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7819-12-355

Received: 25 August 2014

Accepted: 6 November 2014

Published: 23 November 2014

Abstract

Background

Rectal cancer surgery in the older population remains a highly controversial topic. The present study was designed to assess whether older patients had an increased risk for postoperative complications after rectal resection for malignancies.

Methods

Consecutive patients (n =627), who underwent rectal cancer resection at a single institution, were included in the study and analyzed retrospectively. Short-term complications were compared between patients ≥80 years (n =55) and <80 years (n =572). Additionally, predictive factors for postoperative complications were analyzed.

Results

The older aged group showed a significantly higher rate of co-morbidities compared to controls, in terms of cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases (P =0.002, P =0.006). In older patients, a Hartmann’s procedure and transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) were performed most frequently (P <0.0001).

The overall complication rate was 39% (n =244) (medical: n =59 (9%), surgical: n =185 (30%)), including 24 (44%) complications in the older aged group (medical: n =6 (11%), surgical: n =18 (33%)). Notably, the incidence of surgical and medical complications showed no significant difference between patients and controls (P =0.58, P =0.69).

Neurological and cardiovascular disorders were associated with an increased risk for a eventful postoperative course in the older aged group (P =0.03, P =0.04).

Conclusions

Rectal cancer resection can be performed safely in selected older patients. Age itself should not be considered as a risk factor for postoperative complications.

Keywords

Rectal cancerRectal surgeryOlder patientsRisk factorsPostoperative complications

Background

Colorectal cancer is the third most common malignancy worldwide with an increasing incidence over the last decade, especially in the older population [1]. In the light of increasing life expectancy, the medical health system will be confronted with a significantly growing number of older patients in the upcoming years. This development will not only change our daily clinical routine but also challenge the decision-making in the treatment of malignancies in this generation. The careful assessment of the patients will become an essential and central issue and choosing the appropriate treatment for each patient will rely on a multidisciplinary process.

Older people often have a significant number of co-morbidities, thus clinicians tend to offer less aggressive oncological treatment, with the potential consequences of early disease recurrence and reduced overall survival.

In the literature, the optimal treatment of rectal cancer in older aged patients remains controversial [2]. In addition, the interpretation of current data needs to be done with caution as most studies included both colonic and rectal cancer, although treatment strategies and morbidity rates vary significantly. Secondly, the definition of the older aged population is inconsistent with an age range of between 65 and 85 years.

Several studies have described that older age alone is not a risk factor for postoperative complications for patients with rectal cancer and therefore does not increase the mortality rate [37]. In contrast, other studies found out that increased age correlated with a higher postoperative mortality rate and lower overall survival [810]. Notably, the occurrence of co-morbidities influenced the mortality rate significantly [3, 11, 12].

The present study was designed to evaluate whether older patients (>80 years) have an increased risk for postoperative complications after rectal cancer surgery. In addition, we aimed to define parameters to predict an eventful postoperative course in this group of patients.

Methods

Between 1997 and 2010, 627 patients (female: n =248 (40%), male: n =379 (60%), aged 18 to 92 years), who underwent rectal cancer resection at the Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, were included in the study and analyzed retrospectively.

Rectal cancer surgery was divided into intersphincteric or complete rectal resection with coloanal anastomosis and low anterior resection with colorectal anastomosis. A transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), a Hartmann’s procedure or an abdominoperineal resection was conducted in selected cases.

The investigation was approved by the local ethics committee. Data were collected from the institutional colorectal database and individual chart reviews respectively.

Postoperative complications were defined as complications during the first 30 days after surgery and divided into surgical and medical. In addition, postoperative complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification [13].

Short-term complication rates were compared between patients ≥80 years and controls (<80 years).

In addition, 110 patients, 55 in each group, were selected for a matched pair analysis. The control group was matched by sex, type of neoadjuvant therapy and type of operation. Hereby, we aimed to achieve more accurate data, as radio/chemotherapy and the type of surgical procedure may also have an impact on the outcome.

Predictive factors for postoperative complications in older patients were analyzed: age, gender, smoking status, co-morbidities, tumor localization, tumor staging, UICC-criteria (Union Internationale Contre le Cancer), preoperative therapy and type of operation.

Statistical analyses

The chi-square test, the exact chi-square test and the Fisher’s exact test were used to assess associations between categorical variables. In case of ordinal variables a trend version of the chi-square test was used. For matched data analyses the McNemar test was used for binary variables and a test of symmetry for nominal data. All P-values are two-sided and P ≤0.05 was considered significant. All calculations were performed with the statistical analysis software SAS (SAS Institute Inc., Version 9.3, Cary, NC, USA).

Results

Patients (≥80 years) and controls (<80 years)

Demographic data of patients ≥80 years and controls (<80 years) are outlined in Table 1.
Table 1

Demographic data of patients (≥80 years) and controls (<80 years)

 

Group 1

Group 2

P-value

Age <80 years

Age ≥80 years

n =572

n =55

Gender

  

0.071

 Female

220 (38)

28 (51)

 

 Male

352 (62)

27 (49)

 

Co-morbidities

   

 Cardiovascular diseases

250 (44)

36 (65)

0.002

 Pulmonary diseases

63 (11)

13 (24)

0.006

 Neurological diseases

34 (6)

6 (11)

0.149

 Diabetes mellitus

84 (15)

9 (16)

0.738

Tumor localizations

  

0.432

 Upper rectum (12 to 16 cm)

107 (19)

7 (13)

 

 Middle rectum (6 to 12 cm)

220 (39)

25 (46)

 

 Lower rectum (≤6 cm)

241 (42)

22 (41)

 

UICC-criteria

  

0.109

 I

174 (31)

21 (41)

 

 II

117 (21)

10 (20)

 

 III

156 (28)

14 (27)

 

 IV

109 (20)

6 (12)

 

Operative access

  

0.0004

 Open

511 (90)

44 (80)

 

 Laparoscopic

44 (7)

3 (5)

 

 Transanal

15 (3)

8 (15)

 

Operation techniques

  

< 0.0001

 Low anterior resection

374 (65)

28 (51)

 

 Rectum extirpation

65 (11)

6 (11)

 

 Intersphincteric resection

42 (7)

1 (2)

 

 Transanal endoscopic microsurgery

14 (3)

8 (14)

 

 Hartmann’s procedure

15 (3)

7 (13)

 

 Complete rectal resection

48 (8)

4 (7)

 

 Others

14 (3)

1 (2)

 

Stomas

  

0.024

 Colostoma

121 (21)

18 (33)

 

 Ileostoma

259 (45)

15 (27)

 

 No stoma

190 (33)

22 (40)

 

Preoperative therapies

  

0.005

 No therapy

253 (44)

37 (67)

 

 Chemo or radio/chemotherapy

125 (22)

7 (13)

 

 Radiotherapy

194 (44)

11 (20)

 

Values are given as numbers and absolute frequencies (%).

The older aged group (n =55 (9%)) showed a significantly higher rate of co-morbidities compared to the control group. Especially, cardiovascular disease and pulmonary disease were observed more frequently in patients aged above 80 years (P =0.002 and P =0.006). The most common pulmonary disease was chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (n =6 (11%)). Furthermore, 319 (56%) patients in the control group received neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy compared to 18 (33%) of older patients (P =0.005).

Lower anterior resection was the most common operation in both groups. Notably, the older aged group received more TEMs and Hartmann’s procedures (n =8 (14%) and n =7 (13%)) but fewer intersphincteric resections (n =1 (2%)) and low anterior resections (n =28 (51%)) compared to the control group (n =14 (3%), n =15 (3%), n =42 (7%) and n =374 (65%)) (P <0.0001).

A total of 244 complications were observed in the present series. We found 24 (10%) complications in the older aged group (surgical: n =18 (33%) and medical: n =6 (11%)) and 220 (38%) complications in the control group (surgical: n =167 (29%) and medical: n =53 (9%)). Most common surgical and medical complications were wound infections (older age: n =6 (11%), control: n =45 (8%)), paralytic ileus (older age: n =2 (4%), control: n =33 (6%)), anastomotic leaks (older age: n =2 (4%), control: n =26 (5%)), urological complications (older age: n =4 (7%), control: n =26 (5%)), cardiovascular complications (older age: n =2 (4%), control: n =17 (3%)) and fever (older age: n =0, control: n =16 (3%)). They are further outlined in Table 2. Notably, no significant differences were detected between both groups (P =0.58, P =0.69).
Table 2

Surgical and medical complications between patients (≥80 years) and controls (<80 years)

 

Group 1

Group 2

P- value

Age <80 years

Age ≥80 years

n (%)

n (%)

Surgical complications

167 (29)

18 (33)

0.583

 Anastomotic leakage

26 (5)

2 (4)

 

 Wound infection

45 (8)

6 (11)

 

 Bleeding

6 (1)

0

 

 Paralytic ileus

33 (6)

2 (4)

 

 Mechanical obstruction

4 (1)

0

 

 Blood transfusion

7 (1)

1 (2)

 

 Intraabdominal abscess

6 (1)

0

 

 Urological complications

26 (5)

4 (7)

 

 Others

14 (3)

3 (6)

 

Medical complications

53 (9)

6 (11)

0.690

 Fever

16 (3)

0

 

 Thrombosis

3 (1)

0

 

 Pulmonary embolism

5 (1)

0

 

 Cardiovascular complications

17 (3)

2 (4)

 

 Pneumonia

2 (0)

1 (2)

 

 Others

10 (2)

3 (6)

 

Values are given as numbers and absolute frequencies (%).

Additionally, no difference was observed between the older population and controls in regard to the Clavien-Dindo classification: in the older aged group, 6 (11%) patients were classified as grade I, 8 (15%) as grade II, 2 (4%) as grade IIIa and 6 (11%) as grade IIIb (P =0.35). None of the older patients died in the perioperative period.

Regarding the control group, 63 (11%) patients were classified as grade I, 55 (10%) as grade II, 14 (3%) as grade IIIa and 49 (9%) as grade IIIb. Six (1%) patients were classified as grade IV.

Matched pair analysis

Apart from the matching criteria (type of neoadjuvant therapy, type of operation and sex), the height of tumor, tumor stage and the number of stoma creations were equally distributed between both groups. However, in the older aged group 13 (24%) patients presented with pulmonary diseases compared to 2 (4%) patients in the control group (P =0.005).

The overall complication rate in the older aged group was 40% (n =22) and 31% (n =17) in the control group (P =0.34). In addition, no difference was found between the older aged and control group in regard to surgical (n =18 (33%) and n =12 (22%)) and medical complications (n =6 (11%) and n =6 (11%)) (P =0.18 and P =1.0). According to the Clavien-Dindo classification no significant difference was observed either (P =0.95) (Table 3).
Table 3

Clavien-Dindo classification of patients and matched controls

 

Match group 1

Match group 2

P-value

Age <80 years

Age ≥80 years

n (%)

n (%)

Patients without complications

39 (71)

33 (60)

 

Clavien-Dindo grade

  

0.953

 I

4 (7)

6 (11)

 

 II

5 (9)

8 (15)

 

 IIIa

1 (2)

2 (4)

 

 IIIb

5 (9)

6 (11)

 

 IV to V

1 (2)

0

 

Values are given as numbers and absolute frequencies (%).

Risk factors for postoperative complications in older patients

Neurological and cardiovascular diseases correlated with an increased risk for a postoperative eventful course within 30 days post-surgery. Five out of 6 patients with a neurological disease (83%) had postoperative complications within 30 days, compared to only 35% of the patients without a neurological disease (17 of 49 patients; P =0.033). Half of the patients with a cardiovascular disease (18 of 36), but only 21% of the patients without a cardiovascular disease (4 of 19 patients; P =0.037), developed postoperative complications. The detailed list of risk factors is shown in Table 4.
Table 4

Risk factors for postoperative complications

 

Complications

Complications

P-value

No

Yes

Gender

  

0.920

 Female

17 (61)

11 (39)

 

 Male

16 (59)

11 (41)

 

UICC-criteria

  

0.114

 I

16 (76)

5 (24)

 

 II

5 (50)

5 (50)

 

 III

7 (50)

7 (50)

 

 IV

3 (50)

3 (50)

 

Preoperative therapy

  

0.591

 No therapy

24 (65)

13 (35)

 

 Chemo or radio/chemotherapy

4 (57)

3 (43)

 

 Radiotherapy

5 (45

6 (55)

 

Tumor localization

  

0.839

 Upper rectum (12 to 16 cm)

4 (57)

3 (43)

 

 Middle rectum (6 to 12 cm)

15 (60)

10 (40)

 

 Lower rectum (≤6 cm)

14 (63)

8 (36)

 

Operative access

  

0.024

 Open

24 (55)

20 (45)

 

 Laparoscopic

1 (33)

2 (67)

 

 Transanal

8 (100)

0

 

Operation technique

  

0.126

 Low anterior resection

14 (50)

14 (50)

 

 Rectum extirpation

3 (50)

3 (50)

 

 Intersphincteric resection

1 (100)

0

 

 Transanal endoscopic microsurgery

8 (100)

0

 

 Hartmann’s procedure

3 (43)

4 (57)

 

 Complete rectal resection

3 (75)

1 (25)

 

 Others

1 (100)

0

 

Anastomotic technique

  

0.354

 No anastomosis

12 (63)

7 (37)

 

 Staple

15 (52)

14 (48)

 

 Manual

5 (83)

1 (17)

 

Anastomotic form

  

0.500

 No anastomosis

12 (63)

7 (37)

 

 J-pouch

0

1 (100)

 

 End-to-side anastomosis

1 (33)

2 (67)

 

 End-to-end anastomosis

20 (63)

12 (37)

 

Stomas

  

0.645

 Colostoma

10 (56)

8 (44)

 

 Ileostoma

8 (53)

7 (47)

 

 None

15 (68)

7 (32)

 

Accessory surgery

  

0.253

 None

23 (66)

12 (34)

 

 Accessory surgery

10 (50)

10 (50)

 

Neurological diseases

  

0.033

 No

32 (65)

17 (35)

 

 Yes

1 (17)

5 (83)

 

Cardiovascular diseases

  

0.037

 No

15 (79)

4 (21)

 

 Yes

18 (50)

18 (50)

 

Diabetes mellitus

  

0.289

 No

26 (57)

20 (43)

 

 Yes

7 (78)

2 (22)

 

Pulmonary diseases

  

0.244

 No

27 (64)

15 (36)

 

 Yes

6 (46)

7 (54)

 

Smoker

  

0.760

 No

26 (60)

17 (40)

 

 Yes

1 (33)

2 (67)

 

 No longer

6 (67)

3 (33)

 

Values are given as numbers and absolute frequencies (%).

In addition, the type of anastomotic configurations had a significant impact on postoperative medical complications (P =0.048). However, a J-pouch was performed in only one patient, who afterwards developed a medical complication.

Discussion

In the present analysis we could clearly demonstrate that rectal cancer resections can be conducted safely in selected older patients without an increased number of postoperative complications.

Surgery remains the only curative treatment for patients with rectal cancer [14]. However, no clear guidelines for a standardized management in older patients with colorectal cancer exist so far. Most available studies included older patient cohorts aged between 65 and 75 years, with only a paucity of studies investigating the outcome after rectal resections in patients over 80 years [3, 4, 10, 11, 15, 16].

Previous studies showed that colorectal surgery did not impair postoperative outcomes in older patients [3, 11, 15]. However, most of these studies comprised patients with both colon and rectal cancer. We analyzed patients with rectal cancer only and measured comparable numbers of medical and surgical complications. In 2006, Law et al. analyzed postoperative events in patients over 75 years compared with younger patients undergoing rectal surgery. Altogether, 37% of the patients in the older aged group had complications and 30% of the younger patients, leading to the conclusion that curative resection for rectal cancer could be performed safely in both age groups [11]. Vironen et al. assessed patients older than 75 years and found similar results in terms of complications after surgery [4].

Shahir et al. investigated treatment-related complications and overall survival in patients from the age of 60 years. The authors reported complication rates of 65% in patients >70 years and 51% in patients between 60 and 69 years. The older aged group was found to have more cardiac complications (8 versus 2%) and pneumonia (12 versus 7%) compared to younger controls. Furthermore, patients, who underwent surgery and received radiotherapy, had a significantly higher risk for postoperative complications than those undergoing surgery alone. Notably, in their series, the occurrence of complications was associated with an increase in the overall mortality rate [16]. In our series, none of the patients, who developed postoperative complications died during the observational period.

Few studies described older age as an independent risk factor for complications [17, 18]. We analyzed predictive factors for a postoperative eventful course in older patients too and found only cardiovascular and neurological diseases to be correlated with a higher risk for postoperative short-term complications. Law et al. obtained similar results, showing that cardiovascular and neurological diseases occurred more frequently in the older patients. Turrentine et al. investigated the morbidity and mortality rates and risk factors in older patients undergoing major operations [18]. Hypertension and dyspnea were significantly associated with an eventful postoperative course.

It is worth mentioning that a higher rate of Hartmann’s procedures was performed in the older aged group. Similar results were shown by Jung et al., where a total of 17% of the older patients received a Hartmann’s procedure in contrast to 5% of the younger patients [10]. Older patients who are fit for surgery often complain about a reduced anorectal function. In those patients a primary low anastomosis might cause postoperative fecal incontinence and subsequently deteriorate quality of life; thus, a definitive stoma might be a better option in the long term. Additionally, a Hartmann’s procedure has a shorter operative time and avoids possible anastomotic leakages with potential further interventions [19, 20].

The benefits of neoadjuvant radio/chemotherapy in rectal cancer treatment are well documented in the literature [21, 22]. However, the Stockholm I and II trials have shown the distinct negative effects of neoadjuvant radiotherapy in older patients (<80 years) [2325]. The incidence of venous thromboembolism, femoral neck and pelvic fractures, intestinal obstruction and postoperative fistulas was significantly increased after preoperative radiotherapy in this group of patients [24]. Thus, a careful selection to choose the appropriate patients for neoadjuvant therapy is mandatory. In our series, older patients received preoperative treatment less frequently compared to younger patients.

Few limitations of the present study need to be addressed. The study was designed retrospectively, thus a selection bias cannot be ruled out. However, the active policy in our institution is to offer surgical treatment to the vast majority of older people who are referred to our clinic. Certainly, it is possible that few patients with rectal cancer were not seen by surgeons, as they were considered to be too frail to undergo surgery primarily, thus a conservative approach was chosen instead.

Conclusions

Rectal cancer resection can be performed safely in selected older patients. Age itself should not be considered as a risk factor for postoperative complications. Attention should be paid to neurological and cardiovascular diseases, as they may increase the risk for an eventful postoperative course.

Abbreviations

TEM: 

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery

UICC: 

Union internationale contre le cancer.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna
(2)
Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna

References

  1. Haraldsdottir S, Einarsdottir HM, Smaradottir A, Gunnlaugsson A, Halfdanarson TR: Colorectal cancer - review. Laeknabladid. 2014, 100: 75-82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Pallis AG, Mouzas IA: Adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer. Anticancer Res. 2006, 26: 4809-4815.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bufalari A, Giustozzi G, Burattini MF, Servili S, Bussotti C, Lucaroni E, Ricci E, Sciannameo F: Rectal cancer surgery in the elderly: a multivariate analysis of outcome risk factors. J Surg Oncol. 2006, 93: 173-180. 10.1002/jso.20300.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Vironen JH, Sainio P, Husa AI, Kellokumpu IH: Complications and survival after surgery for rectal cancer in patients younger than and aged 75 years or older. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004, 47: 1225-1231. 10.1007/s10350-004-0557-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chiappa A, Zbar AP, Bertani E, Biella F, Audisio RA, Staudacher C: Surgical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients including the elderly. Hepatogastroenterology. 2001, 48: 440-444.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Puig-La Calle J, Quayle J, Thaler HT, Shi W, Paty PB, Quan SH, Cohen AM, Guillem JG: Favorable short-term and long-term outcome after elective radical rectal cancer resection in patients 75 years of age or older. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000, 43: 1704-1709. 10.1007/BF02236854.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Makela JT, Kiviniemi H, Laitinen S: Survival after operations for colorectal cancer in patients aged 75 years or over. Eur J Surg. 2000, 166: 473-479. 10.1080/110241500750008790.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Finlayson EV, Birkmeyer JD: Operative mortality with elective surgery in older adults. Eff Clin Pract. 2001, 4: 172-177.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Tan KK, Koh FH, Tan YY, Liu JZ, Sim R: Long-term outcome following surgery for colorectal cancers in octogenarians: a single institution’s experience of 204 patients. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012, 16: 1029-1036. 10.1007/s11605-011-1818-x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Jung B, Pahlman L, Johansson R, Nilsson E: Rectal cancer treatment and outcome in the elderly: an audit based on the Swedish Rectal Cancer Registry 1995-2004. BMC Cancer. 2009, 9: 68-10.1186/1471-2407-9-68.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Law WL, Choi HK, Ho JW, Lee YM, Seto CL: Outcomes of surgery for mid and distal rectal cancer in the elderly. World J Surg. 2006, 30: 598-604. 10.1007/s00268-005-0442-x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Barrier A, Ferro L, Houry S, Lacaine F, Huguier M: Rectal cancer surgery in patients more than 80 years of age. Am J Surg. 2003, 185: 54-57. 10.1016/S0002-9610(02)01120-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA: Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004, 240: 205-213. 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Chang GJ, Skibber JM, Feig BW, Rodriguez-Bigas M: Are we undertreating rectal cancer in the elderly? An epidemiologic study. Ann Surg. 2007, 246: 215-221. 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318070838f.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hotta T, Takifuji K, Yokoyama S, Matsuda K, Higashiguchi T, Tominaga T, Oku Y, Nasu T, Yamaue H: Rectal cancer surgery in the elderly: analysis of consecutive 158 patients with stage III rectal cancer. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2007, 392: 549-558. 10.1007/s00423-007-0199-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Shahir MA, Lemmens VE, Van de Poll-Franse LV, Voogd AC, Martijn H, Janssen-Heijnen ML: Elderly patients with rectal cancer have a higher risk of treatment-related complications and a poorer prognosis than younger patients: a population-based study. Eur J Cancer. 2006, 42: 3015-3021. 10.1016/j.ejca.2005.10.032.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Edna TH, Bjerkeset T: Colorectal cancer in patients over 80 years of age. Hepatogastroenterology. 1998, 45: 2142-2145.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Turrentine FE, Wang H, Simpson VB, Jones RS: Surgical risk factors, morbidity, and mortality in elderly patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2006, 203: 865-877. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2006.08.026.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. David GG, Al-Sarira AA, Willmott S, Cade D, Corless DJ, Slavin JP: Use of Hartmann’s procedure in England. Colorectal Dis. 2009, 11: 308-312. 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2008.01586.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Adams WJ, Mann LJ, Bokey EL, Chapuis PH, Koorey SG, Hughes WJ: Hartmann’s procedure for carcinoma of the rectum and sigmoid colon. Aust N Z J Surg. 1992, 62: 200-203. 10.1111/j.1445-2197.1992.tb05463.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. De Caluwe L, Van Nieuwenhove Y, Ceelen WP: Preoperative chemoradiation versus radiation alone for stage II and III resectable rectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013, 2: CD006041-PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Wong RK, Tandan V, De Silva S, Figueredo A: Pre-operative radiotherapy and curative surgery for the management of localized rectal carcinoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007, 2: CD002102-PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Holm T, Rutqvist LE, Johansson H, Cedermark B: Postoperative mortality in rectal cancer treated with or without preoperative radiotherapy: causes and risk factors. Br J Surg. 1996, 83: 964-968. 10.1002/bjs.1800830725.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Holm T, Singnomklao T, Rutqvist LE, Cedermark B: Adjuvant preoperative radiotherapy in patients with rectal carcinoma: adverse effects during long term follow-up of two randomized trials. Cancer. 1996, 78: 968-976. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19960901)78:5<968::AID-CNCR5>3.0.CO;2-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Martling A, Holm T, Johansson H, Rutqvist LE, Cedermark B: The Stockholm II trial on preoperative radiotherapy in rectal carcinoma: long-term follow-up of a population-based study. Cancer. 2001, 92: 896-902. 10.1002/1097-0142(20010815)92:4<896::AID-CNCR1398>3.0.CO;2-R.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Singh et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement