Abdominoperineal excision in Australasia: clinical outcomes, predictive factors and recent trends of nonrestorative rectal cancer surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The decision to perform an abdominoperineal excision (APR) rather than restorative bowel resection relies on a number of clinical factors. There remains great variability in APR rates internationally. The aim of this study was to demonstrate trends of APR surgery in low rectal cancer (< 6 cm from the anal verge) in Australasia and identify predictors of nonrestoration. METHOD: This study reviewed a prospectively maintained colorectal registry - the Binational Colorectal Cancer Audit (BCCA) - from general/colorectal surgical units across Australia and New Zealand. Data were analysed to determine factors predictive of nonrestorative resection. Patients were analysed based on the presence (control) or absence (comparison) of a primary anastomosis. RESULTS: Of 3628 patients with rectal cancer, 2096 were diagnosed with low rectal cancer between 2007 and 2017. The incidence of APR remained constant over the study period, with 58% of all resections of low rectal cancer being APR. The majority of resections were performed by consultants in urban hospitals (86% vs 14%). Tumours ≤ 3 cm from the anal verge, T4, M1 disease and neoadjuvant therapy were the greatest predictors of APR (P < 0.001). A significantly increased rate of restorative surgery was observed in public hospital settings (59% vs 41%, P < 0.05). The rate of positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) was 7.95%, with significantly increased rates in patients undergoing APR (12.2% vs 6.2%, P < 0.001). CRM positivity was increased in open approaches, T4, N2 and M1 staged disease and in an emergency/urgent setting (P < 0.001 and P < 0.045, respectively). Significantly increased wound and pulmonary complications were observed in the APR cohort (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The rates of APR in Australia and New Zealand remain high but are comparable to international figures, with one-third of rectal cancers being treated by APR. The main determinants of APR are tumour height, T stage and neoadjuvant therapy requirement. CRM positivity was higher in APR patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".