pelvic wall. Surg. Gynecol. Obstet. 88 (4): 498.61 61 Barber, H. and Brunschwig, A. (1967). Excision of major blood vessels at the periphery of the pelvis in patients receiving pelvic exenteration: common and/or iliac arteries and veins 1947 to 1964. Surgery 62 (3): 426.
62 62 Mirnezami, A.H., Sagar, P.M., Kavanagh, D. et al. (2010). Clinical algorithms for the surgical management of locally recurrent rectal cancer. Dis. Colon Rectum 53 (9): 1248–1257.
63 63 Austin, K.K. and Solomon, M.J. (2009). Pelvic exenteration with en bloc iliac vessel resection for lateral pelvic wall involvement. Dis. Colon Rectum 52 (7): 1223–1233.
64 64 Höckel, M. (2008). Laterally extended endopelvic resection (LEER) – principles and practice. Gynecol. Oncol. 111 (2): S13–S17.
65 65 Abdelsattar, Z.M., Mathis, K.L., Colibaseanu, D.T. et al. (2013). Surgery for locally advanced recurrent colorectal cancer involving the aortoiliac axis: can we achieve R0 resection and long‐term survival? Dis. Colon Rectum 56 (6): 711–716.
66 66 Brown, K.G., Koh, C.E., Solomon, M.J. et al. (2015). Outcomes after en bloc iliac vessel excision and reconstruction during pelvic exenteration. Dis. Colon Rectum 58 (9): 850–856.
67 67 Solomon, M., Brown, K., Koh, C. et al. (2015). Lateral pelvic compartment excision during pelvic exenteration. Br. J. Surg. 102 (13): 1710–1717.
68 68 Clark, D.G., Daniel, W.W., and Brunschwig, A. (1962). Intestinal fistulas following pelvic exenteration. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 84 (2): 187–191.
69 69 Schoenberg, H.W. and Mikuta, J.J. (1973). Technique for preventing urinary fistulas following pelvic exenteration and ureteroileostomy. J. Urol. 110 (3): 294–295.
70 70 McCraw, J.B., Massey, F.M., Shanklin, K.D., and Horton, C.E. (1976). Vaginal reconstruction with gracilis myocutaneous flaps. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 58 (2): 176–183.
71 71 Palmer, J., Vernon, C., Cummings, B., and Moffat, F. (1983). Gracilis myocutaneous flap for reconstructing perineal defects resulting from radiation and radical surgery. Can. J. Surg. 26 (6): 510–512.
72 72 Shaw, A. and Futrell, J. (1978). Cure of chronic perineal sinus with gluteus maximus flap. Surg. Gynecol. Obstet. 147 (3): 417–420.
73 73 Temple, W.J. and Ketcham, A.S. (1982). The closure of large pelvic defects by extended compound tensor fascia lata and inferior gluteal myocutaneous flaps. Am. J. Clin. Oncol. 5 (6): 573–577.
74 74 Chessin, D.B., Hartley, J., Cohen, A.M. et al. (2005). Rectus flap reconstruction decreases perineal wound complications after pelvic chemoradiation and surgery: a cohort study. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 12 (2): 104–110.
75 75 Pursell, S.H., Day, T.G. Jr., and Tobin, G.R. (1990). Distally based rectus abdominis flap for reconstruction in radical gynecologic procedures. Gynecol. Oncol. 37 (2): 234–238.
76 76 Benson, C., Soisson, A.P., Carlson, J. et al. (1993). Neovaginal reconstruction with a rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap. Obstet. Gynecol. 81 (5 (Pt 2)): 871–875.
2 The Role of the Multidisciplinary Team in the Management of Locally Advanced and Recurrent Rectal Cancer
Dennis P. Schaap1, Joost Nederend2, Harm J.T. Rutten1, and Jacobus W.A. Burger1
1 Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, The Netherlands
2 Department of Radiology, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Background
Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) have been implemented to deal with the complexity of cancer care [1]. The aim of these meetings is to provide a structured discussion platform to plan patient care [2–7]. The goal is to benefit from the collective knowledge of all specialties in order to optimize staging, treatment, and follow‐up. Furthermore, it can facilitate assessment for patients’ inclusion in clinical trials.
The organization of the MDTM is time consuming and comes with costs. Delaying decisions until the MDTM has taken place can sometimes delay treatment. MDTM results in a significant change in diagnosis or treatment planning, ranging from 18.5 to 36% and 11.0 to 14.5% respectively [8–14].The role of adequate preoperative tumor staging and discussion in an MDTM resulted in more patients receiving neoadjuvant treatment, increased local control, and R0 resections [15].
The governing body for the quality of care for patients with cancer in the Netherlands is the Stichting voor Oncologische Samenwerking (Foundation for Oncological Collaboration, SONCOS) [16]. SONCOS represents 29 national societies involved in cancer care, including the Society for Medical Oncology, the Society of Surgical Oncology, and the Society of Radiation Oncology. SONCOS delivers a yearly report stating the conditions that must be fulfilled by any multidisciplinary team caring for cancer patients. Dutch physicians are obliged to adhere to these conditions. Furthermore, all Dutch medical centers have agreed to standardize data registry with a national database to monitor the effect of changes in treatment strategy on quality measurements as shown in Figure 2.1. Hence, factors improving the quality of care can be identified and applied easily in order to improve patient outcome. MDTMs across the Netherlands can deal with the majority of patients with pelvic cancer from gastroenterological, urological, or gynecological origin. However, patients with locally advanced and recurrent pelvic cancer should be discussed in a specialized MDTM [16].
Complex Pelvic Cancer MDTM
Patients with locally advanced primary and recurrent pelvic cancers are associated with a higher risk of local recurrence, distant metastases, and poor survival. Furthermore, these complex pelvic tumors require several specialties for an accurate preoperative evaluation, neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant therapy with a multidisciplinary surgical approach, (Table 2.1). Preoperative treatments providing downstaging are essential to both increase the chance of radical resections and prevent unnecessarily extensive resections that lead to impairment. Centralization is warranted, to identify those patients who require this specialized care.
Figure 2.1 National registries help to monitor outcome. In this control chart for proportions, a decrease in R+ resection rate seems to be statistically significant and leads to differences in the mean R+ resection rate. This moment (referred to as ‘out of control’) coincides with the change of preoperative treatment in locally recurrent pelvic cancer patients (unpublished data). CL, Control limit; UCL, upper control limit.
In order to work toward a situation in which all patients with locally advanced cancers are discussed in a complex cancer MDTM, it is essential that it is easily accessible for physicians outside the specialized center.
Staging, Restaging, and Pathological Assessment
Staging
Radiologic assessment of local and distant disease in the setting of advanced pelvic
