Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention : APJCP logoLink to Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention : APJCP
. 2022 Apr;23(4):1137–1145. doi: 10.31557/APJCP.2022.23.4.1137

A Systematic Review on Overall Survival and Disease-Free Survival Following Total Pelvic Exenteration

Seyed Rouhollah Miri 1, Setareh Akhavan 2, Azam Sadat Mousavi 2, Seyedeh Razieh Hashemi 3, Shahrzad Sheikhhasani 3, Amir Almasi-Hashiani 4,5, Mohammad Sadegh Fakhari 6, Arezoo Esmailzadeh 2,3,*
PMCID: PMC9375624  PMID: 35485668

Abstract

Backgrounds:

Total Pelvic Exenteration (TPE) is a radical operation for malignancies in which all of the organs inside the pelvic cavity, including the female reproductive organs, the lower urinary tract, and a part of the rectosigmoid are removed. In this study, we aimed to conduct a systematic review to assess the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) following TPE.

Methods:

This systematic review is composed of a comprehensive review of PubMed and Scopus databases with various related keywords to synthesis the overall survival and disease-free survival following TPE. The Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guideline was used to summarize the results.

Results:

We included the results of 39 primary studies and the results revealed that one-year OS of gynecological cancer in patients who have undergone TPE ranged from 50.0% to 72.0% and the 5-years OS ranged from 6.0% to 64.6%. The one-year survival rate of colorectal cancer patients was reported to be over 80% in almost all studies. The 3-year survival rate of patients varied from 25% to 75% and the lowest 5-year survival rate was 8% and the highest survival rate was 92%. To synthesis the disease-free survival rate in colorectal cancer, ten studies were included and one-year recurrence rate was 9.1% and the one-year DFS was reported as 61.0%. Three-year recurrence rate study was 20.4% and 3 and 5-year DFS ranged from 22.0% to 78.0%.

Conclusions:

The results suggested that DFS in primary advanced cancers is higher than locally recurrence tumors. This review showed that patient overall survival and disease-free survival rates have increased over time, especially at high volume centers that are more experienced and possibly better equipped. Therefore, it can be suggested that the attitude towards PE as a palliative surgery can be turned into curative surgery.

Key Words: Overall survival, disease, free survival, recurrence rate, total pelvic exenteration

Introduction

Cancer is a major cause of death and one of the main barriers to increasing life expectancy in the world, and according to the World Health Organization, it is the first or second leading cause of death before the age of 70 in 121 countries, and its burden is rising rapidly worldwide (Bray et al., 2021; Sung et al., 2021).

Total Pelvic Exenteration (TPE) is a radical operation for malignancies and it is performed by an interdisciplinary team (Brunschwig, 1948; Yang et al., 2015). Brunschwig first presented this surgical procedure in 1948 (Brunschwig, 1948). In TPE surgery, all of the organs inside the pelvic cavity, including the female reproductive organs, the lower urinary tract, and a part of the rectosigmoid are removed (Vermaas et al., 2007; Ferenschild et al., 2009). This technique is generally used in advanced gynecological cancers, as well as recurrent rectal cancer, comprising primary advanced and recurrent diseases (Shaikh et al., 2021) provided that both gynecological and rectosigmoid cancers are common in the world (Sung et al., 2021) and some of these patients would suffer from advanced conditions or recurrence, so they will demand a more advanced therapeutic approach like TPE.

Although it is an aggressive method, is seems to be the best choice for treating recurrent or advanced cancer patients with extensive pelvic disease (Berek et al., 2005). In recurrent or advanced cancer patients, TPE is the last resort therapeutic choice (as a salvage procedure) which can improve patients’ survival (Berek et al., 2005; de Wilt et al., 2007).

Unlike the early years of introducing this technique, in recent years, the patients’ survival, disease-free survival and mortality rate following this surgical procedure has improved. One-year and 5-year survival rate for patients with cervical, vaginal and uterine cancer was more than 70 and 50 percent, respectively (Berek et al., 2005; de Wilt et al., 2007) following TPE, in spite of the survival and mortality rate, the reported morbidity is still high (Chiantera et al., 2014; Vigneswaran et al., 2021).

The results obtained from different studies show that after TPE, the survival and mortality rate has been on the rise in the recent years. The reported results from countries and centers are different, mainly due to different experiences, equipment and the quality of postoperative care in each center. In this study, we aimed to conduct a systematic review to assess the overall survival and disease-free survival following TPE.

Materials and Methods

Study design

This systematic review is composed of a comprehensive review of two electronic international databases with various related keywords to synthesis the overall survival and disease-free survival in patients who had underwent TPE surgery because of primary advanced and recurrent cancers in the lower pelvic region. To prepare the report, we followed the reporting guideline of The Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) presented by Campbell M. et. al. (Campbell et al., 2020) and PRISMA Checklist (Page et al., 2021).

Search strategy

We searched the two international databases including Medline (via PubMed) and Scopus. To find the gray literature and additional primary studies, Google Scholar searched and the references list of retrieved publications manually searched. All English full-text primary studies published up to April 2021 were included in this review. Prospective or retrospective cohort studies were eligible to include. Patients with primary advanced or recurrent gynecological or rectosigmoid cancers were the target population and disease-free survival and 1, 3 or 5-year survival were extracted. To search the mentioned databases, a combination of keywords and Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) used, which included the following: Survival, mortality, Disease-Free Survival, Survival Analysis, Survival Rate, Pelvic Exenteration and Total Pelvic Exenteration filtered on human studies and English full-text studies. The search strategy is presented in Table S1 (Supplementary file).

Screening process

To screen the retrieved studies, all papers were included in the Endnote software. At first, duplicate papers identified and removed. Then, all remaining papers screened by title and abstract and irrelevant papers excluded. Finally, the full-text of remained papers was checked and all eligible papers with relevant data were included in the systematic review. Screening of articles done by two authors (AAH and MSF).

Data extraction

All relevant data extracted by two authors. To clean and manage the data, the extracted data entered into Excel software. The extracted data included title, the name of the first author of the article, year of publication, study duration, country of study, sample size, type of cancer, overall survival and disease-free survival of patients.

Grouping studies for synthesis

The retrieved studies differed in the type of cancer and the reported outcomes (i.e. mortality rate, overall survival and disease-free survival). Since all of the included articles did not report overall survival and disease-free survival rigorously and to reduce heterogeneity between studies, we grouped the articles according to the type of cancer (gynecological cancers and rectosigmoid cancers).

Synthesis methods

Because of different effect sizes reported in primary studies, and since in most cases the median survival reported along with interquartile range (IQR) instead of 95% confidence interval, meta-analysis was not possible. Summarizing effect estimates as a synthesis method used to summarize the obtained results. In this regard, we provided the minimum and maximum of overall and disease-free survival rate following TPE based on cancer type.

Criteria used to priorities results for summary and synthesis

We synthesis the results of studies based on reported outcomes and cancer site. In addition, we tried to assess the time trend of interested outcomes.

Investigation of heterogeneity in reported effects

To investigate heterogeneity in the findings, informal method used. In this method, we ordered the tables by hypothesized modifiers such as cancer type. In addition, the studies in tables was ordered by year, since it seems that time is a modifying factor and survival rates have been on the rise over time.

Certainty of evidence

In the included studies, 95% confidence interval was not reported; therefore, we tried other methods to examine the certainty of evidence such as the number of included studies and participants, the consistency of effect sizes and the risk of bias of the studies. To assess the risk of bias across studies, cohort adopted Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) used which score ranged from 0 to 9 and the studies categorized in terms of study quality in the three groups as low (less than 3), moderate (3 to 6) and high (more than 6).

Data presentation methods and reporting results

We draw table to present the study findings to simplify the comparison. Sample size and risk of bias of the included studies were reported in the table and narrative text, because they might affect the interpretation of the results.

Limitations of the synthesis

One of the important limitations of data synthesis was the impossibility of performing meta-analysis for the following reasons. Studies had been conducted on different cancers, and the study populations were not the same. In some cases, outcomes were not reported by type of cancer. Required information such as effect size and variance (or 95% confidence interval) was not reported in most studies, which forced us to synthesize studies using summarizing effect estimates.

Results

Study selection

In this systematic review, 1506 primary studies (646 papers via Medline, 841 via Scopus and 19 papers via additional search) retrieved. Of the total articles, 573 duplicate articles were identified and removed. Then, the titles and abstracts of the remaining 933 articles were screened and at this stage, 635 articles were excluded due to the lack of fulfilling the inclusion criteria and the full text of 298 remained articles was evaluated, of which 39 articles entered into this systematic review and 259 studies were excluded. All the process was presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Flow Diagram of the Literature Search for Studies Included in the Systematic Review

Study characteristics

Thirty-nine studies published between 1967 and 2020 with total sample size of 2028 cases ranged from 9 to 232 were included in this review. Most studies have been done in the United States (with 11 studies) and no studies have been reported from Africa. In terms of cancer type, there were both primary and recurrent cancers among the studies and gastrointestinal (including: anus, rectum, colon, rectosigmoid and Soft tissue sarcoma), gynecological cancers (including: cervix, uterine, endometrium, vagina, ovary, vulva, leiomyosarcomas) and urologic cancers (bladder, urethra, prostate) were investigated. Some studies were designed only for gynecological cancers and some for gastrointestinal cancers. In some studies, both gynecological and gastrointestinal cancers were included, in which the outcomes were reported separately and, in some cases, together.

Risk of bias in studies and Reporting biases

The quality of included studies was assessed by NOS scale; 22 studies were methodologically graded as high quality and 17 as medium standard.

Results of individual studies and syntheses

Overall Survival rate in gynecological cancer

Fourteen studies with 901 cases were included to summarize the overall survival rate in gynecological cancers following TPE. Different types of cancers such as cervical, uterine, endometrial, vaginal, ovarian and urethrical were investigated. As it was shown in Table 1, the lowest sample size was 9 conducted by K. Nedyalkov et al. (Nedyalkov et al., 2019) and the highest was 232 cases by Lopez, M. J. et al. (Lopez et al., 1994) The newest and oldest studies were conducted in 2020 by Lewandowska, A. et al. (Lewandowska et al., 2020) and in 1970 by A. S. Ketcham et al. (Ketcham et al., 1970) respectively.

Table 1.

Overall Survival Rate Following Total Pelvic Exenteration by Cancer Type

Cancer type First author Year Country Primary tumor site Sample size OS rate NOS
Gynecologic cancer (Lewandowska et al., 2020) 2020 Poland Recurrent Cervical Cancer 22 Median survival time: 11.5 IQR: (5-17.1) months High
(Nedyalkov et al., 2019) 2019 Bulgaria Cervical cancer 9 *Approximately 1 year OS: 50% Moderate
(Seagle et al., 2016) 2016 The USA Uterine cancer 60 Median OS: 37.4 95%CI: (20.2–71.2) High
(Guimarães et al., 2011) 2011 Brazil Advanced gynecological cancer 13 2-year OS: 15.4% Moderate
(Kuhrt et al., 2012) 2012 The USA Gynecologic (n=6), urologic malignancies (n=5), leiomyosarcomas (n=3), anal cancer (n=2), and benign disease (n=1). 17 The median survival:
6.9 months in the non-colorectal group		 Moderate
(Ferenschild et al., 2009) 2009 Netherlands Cervical cancer (n=14), pelvic sarcoma (n=5), primary vagina carcinoma (n=1), and recurrent endometrial carcinoma (n=1). 21 5-year OS:
Other cancer 45%.
All patients with soft-tissue sarcoma were alive after 5 years.		 High
(Terán-Porcayo et al., 2006) 2006 Mexico Cervical cancer 20 5-year OS: 64.6% High
(Goldberg et al., 2006) 2006 The USA Gynecological and colorectal cancers (Cervical cancer (n=95), Endometrial cancer (n=2), Colon cancer (n=5 and Vulva cancer (n=1)) 103 5-year OS:
Cervical cancer: 48.4%
All patients: 46.6.0%		 Moderate
(Sharma et al., 2005) 2005 The USA Gynecological cancers 41 *3-year OS: 35.0%
*5-year OS: 24.0%		 High
(Beitler et al., 1997) 1997 The USA Cervix cancer 26 1-year OS: 72.0%*
3-year OS: 63.0%*
5-year OS: 63.0%		 High
(Lopez et al., 1994) 1994 The USA Cervix (155), Rectosigmoid (27), Endometrium (16), Vagina (9), Bladder (5), Ovary (5), Anal (4), Vulva (4), Urethra (2), Prostate (2), Soft tissue sarcoma (2). 232 5-year OS: 42.0% Moderate
(Shingleton et al., 1989) 1989 The USA Recurrent Cervical Cancer 78 1-year OS: 64.0%*
3-year OS: 44.0%*
5-year OS: 42.0%
10-year OS: 28.0%*		 Moderate
(Karlen and Piver, 1975) 1975 The USA Gynecological cancer 29 2-year OS: 41.0%
3-year OS: 38.0%
5-year OS: 26.0%		 Moderate
(Ketcham et al., 1970) 1970 Georgia UTERINE CERVIX 125 5-year OS: 34.0% Moderate
(Ingiulla and Cosmi, 1967) 1967 Italy Advanced carcinoma of the cervix 105 5-year OS: 6.0% Moderate
Colorectal cancers (Hagemans et al., 2018) 2018 The Netherlands Rectal cancer 126 5-year: 44% High
(Katory et al., 2017) 2017 The UK Colorectal cancer 14 1 and 5-year: 92.9% High
(Koda et al., 2016) 2016 Japan Colorectal cancer 23 OS: 82.3% during a median follow-up period of 1258 days High
(Nielsen et al., 2012) 2012 Denmark Rectal cancer 90 3-year OS: *
62.0% for PARC
40.0% for LRRC
5-year OS: *
45.0% for PARC
20.0% for LRRC		 High
(Kuhrt et al., 2012) 2012 The USA Colorectal cancer group 36 The median survival:
21.4 months in the colorectal group 		Moderate
(Mitulescu et al., 2011) 2011 Romania Colorectal and non-colorectal 213 3-year OS: 67.0%*
5-year OS: 48.0%*		 Moderate
(Domes et al., 2011) 2011 Canada Locally advanced or recurrent rectal carcinoma 28 3-year OS: 75.1% High
(Ferenschild et al., 2009) 2009 The Netherlands Rectal cancer 48 5-year OS:
Primary rectal: 66.0%
Recurrent rectal: 8.0%		 High
(Vermaas et al., 2007) 2007 The Netherlands Primary locally advanced (n=23) and recurrent rectal cancer (n=12) 35 Primary locally advanced rectal cancer:
5-year OS: 52%
Recurrent rectal cancer:
3-year OS: 32%
5-year OS: 16%		 High
(Moriya et al., 2004) 2004 Japan Recurrent Rectal Cancer 41 3-year OS: 58.0%
5-year OS: 40.0%. 		Moderate
(Poletto et al., 2004) 2004 Brazil Colorectal, anal, cervix, Vulva, Vagina, Endometrium, Urethra and Soft-tissue sarcoma 38 5-year OS: 41.2% High
Cancer type First author Year Country Primary tumor site Sample size OS rate NOS
Colorectal cancers (Kamat et al., 2003) 2003 The USA Locally recurrent prostate cancer 14 1-year OS: 82.0%*
3-year OS: 58.0%*
5-year OS: 13.0%.*		 High
(Ike et al., 2003) 2003 Japan Primary Rectal Cancer 71 3-year OS: 68.0%*
5-year OS: 54.1%
10-year OS: 50.0%		 High
(Wiig et al., 2002) 2002 Norway Advanced Primary and Recurrent Rectal Cancer 47 5-year OS: 28.0%
Primary cancers: 36%
Recurrent cancer: 18%		 High
(Law et al., 2000) 2000 Hong Kong Primary or recurrent rectal cancer 24 5-year OS: 44.0%
primary rectal cancer: 64.0%		 High
(Russo et al., 1999) 1999 The USA Rectal cancer 47 1-year OS: 85.0%*
3-year OS: 34.0%
5-year OS: 20.0%*		 High
(Bramhall et al., 1999) 1999 The USA Locally advanced pelvic tumors 50 1-year OS: 68.0%
5-year OS: 18.0%		 High
(Shirouzu et al., 1996) 1996 Japan Locally advanced colorectal cancer 17 5 and 10-year OS:
primary cancer/ stage II: 71.0%
3 and 5-year OS:
recurrent cancer/curative surgery: 25.0%		 Moderate
(Luna-Perez, 1996) 1995 Mexico Primary rectal adenocarcinoma 18 1-year OS: 88.0%*
3-year OS: 57.0%*
5-year OS: 57.0%		 High
(Liu et al., 1994) 1994 China Advanced rectal carcinoma 31 5-year OS: 52.0%
5-year OS/Primary cancer: 56.0%		 Moderate
(Takagi et al., 1985) 1985 Japan Advanced cancers of the rectum and distal sigmoid colon 13 5-year OS: 38.5%* Moderate
(Boey et al., 1982) 1982 Hong Kong Locally advanced colorectal cancer 26 5-year OS: 30.4% Moderate
Open in a new tab

*Estimated from Kaplan-Meier curve

One-year OS ranged from 50.0% in a study conducted by K. Nedyalkov et al. (Nedyalkov et al., 2019) to 72.0% in J. J. Beitler et al. (Beitler et al., 1997) study which was carried out on cervical cancer patients. The 5-years OS ranged from 6.0% in a study conducted by Ingiulla, W. et al. (Ingiulla and Cosmi, 1967) on 105 patients with advanced carcinoma of the cervix in Italy,1967 to 64.6% in 2006 on 20 cervical cancer patients in Mexico by M. A. Terán-Porcayo et al. (Terán-Porcayo et al., 2006) (Table 1).

Overall Survival rate in colorectal cancer

Twenty-two primary studies with totally 1050 patients were included in systematic review to summarize the overall survival rate in colorectal cancers following TPE. The newest study was conducted in the Netherlands, 2018 with 126 cases by J.A.W. Hagemans et al. (Hagemans et al., 2018) and the oldest in Hong Kong, 1982 with 26 cases by Boey, J. et al. (Boey et al., 1982).

The one-year survival rate of patients was reported to be over 80% in all studies, except for one article that was conducted by S. R. Bramhall et al. (Bramhall et al., 1999) in the USA, 1999, in which the one-year survival rate of patients with locally advanced pelvic tumors was reported to be 68%.

The 3-year survival rate of patients varied from 25% in the study of K Shirouzu et al., (Shirouzu et al., 1996) which was conducted in Japan, 1996 on recurrent cancer patients, to 75% in the study of Trustin S. Domes et al., (Domes et al., 2011) conducted on locally advanced or recurrent rectal carcinoma in Canada, 2011.

Regarding the 5-year survival rate, the lowest 5-year survival rate was 8% in the F. T. J. Ferenschild et al. (Ferenschild et al., 2009) study on recurrent rectal cancer patients in the Netherlands, 2009, and the highest survival rate was 92% in the study of Mark Katory et al. (Katory et al., 2017) in the UK, 2017 (Table 1).

Disease Free Survival rate in gynecological cancer

Only one study was carried out on gynecological cancers and reported disease-free survival, which was a study in Korea that reported a median survival time of 12 months. This study was conducted by Park, J. Y. et al. (Park et al., 2007) on 30 gynecologic cancers patients.

Disease-Free Survival rate in colorectal cancer

To summarize disease-free survival rate in colorectal cancer ten studies with 476 cases were included. One-year recurrence rate in Katory, M. et al. (Katory et al., 2017) study which was conducted on 14 colorectal cancer patients in UK, 2017 was 9.1% and the one-year DFS was reported as 61.0% in study by Luna-Perez, P. et al. (Luna-Perez et al., 1995) on primary rectal adenocarcinoma in 1995. Three-year recurrence rate in Katory, M. et al. (Katory et al., 2017) study was 20.4% and 3-year and 5-year DFS ranged from 22.0% to 78.0% in M. B. Nielsen et al. (Nielsen et al., 2012) study and J.A.W. Hagemans et al. (Hagemans et al., 2018) study, respectively. DFS in primary advanced cancers and stage II primary disease is higher than locally recurrent tumors and stage III primary disease.

Table 2.

Disease Free Survival Rate Following Total Pelvic Exenteration by Cancer Type

Cancer type First author Year Country Primary tumor site Sample size DFS NOS
Gynecologic cancer (Park et al., 2007) 2007 Korea Gynecologic cancers 30 Median DFS: 12.00 months, 95%CI= (4.50–19.50) Moderate
Colorectal cancers (Bogner et al., 2021) 2021 Germany Colorectal cancer, gynecological malignancies, anal cancer, and other primary tumors 63 The recurrence-free survival: 9.3 (IQR 5.0–24.7) months. High
(Hagemans et al., 2018) 2018 The Netherlands Rectal cancer (locally advanced rectal cancer and locally recurrent rectal cancer) 126 3 and 5-year Local RFS rates were 78% in elderly patients and in younger patients: 3-year LRFS: 65% and 5-year LRFS: 61% High
(Katory et al., 2017) 2017 The UK Colorectal cancer 14 1 year recurrence: 9.1%
3-year recurrence: 20.4%
5-year recurrence: 33.7%		 High
Koda et al.,2016) 2016 Japan Colorectal cancer 23 5-year DFS: 71.8% High
(Nielsen et al., 2012) 2012 Denmark Rectal cancer 90 3-year DFS:
42.3% (24.8–58.7) for PARC
22.0% (10.2–36.6) for LRRC
5-year DFS:
25.9% (11.4–43.2) for PARC
22.0% (10.2–36.6) for LRRC		 High
(Domes et al., 2011) 2011 Canada Locally advanced or recurrent rectal carcinoma 28 3-year DFS: 52.2% High
(Poletto et al., 2004) 2004 Brazil Colorectal, anal, cervix, Vulva, Vagina, Endometrium, Urethra and Soft-tissue sarcoma 38 5-year DFS: 37.8% High
(Chen and Sheen-Chen, 2001) 2001 Taiwan Locally advanced primary colorectal cancer 50 5-year DFS:
stage II primary disease: 62.0%
stage III primary disease: 35.0%		 Moderate
(Luna-Perez et al., 1995) 1995 Mexico Primary rectal adenocarcinoma 18 1-year DFS: 61.0%*
3-year DFS: 72.0%*
5-year DFS: 61.0%		 High
(Boey et al., 1982) 1982 Hong Kong Locally advanced colorectal cancer 26 5-year DFS: 22.2% Moderate
Open in a new tab

*Estimated from Kaplan-Meier curve

Discussion

In this systematic review we summarized the overall and disease-free survival rates in patients who had undergone TPE. We included the results of 39 primary studies and the results revealed that one-year OS of gynecological cancer in patients who have undergone TPE ranged from 50.0% to 72.0% and the 5-years OS ranged from 6.0% to 64.6%. The one-year survival rate of colorectal cancer patients was reported to be over 80% in all studies, with the exception of one article conducted by S. R. Bramhall et al. (Bramhall et al., 1999) in USA, 1999, where the one-year survival rate of patients with locally advanced tumors was reported to be 68%. The 3-year survival rate of patients varied from 25% to 75% and the lowest 5-year survival rate was 8% and the highest survival rate was 92%.

Regarding disease-free survival in gynecological cancers, a study in Korea by Jeong-Yeol Park et al. (Park et al., 2007) on 30 gynecologic cancer patients reported a median survival time of 12 months. To synthesis the disease-free survival rate in colorectal cancer, ten studies were included and one-year recurrence rate in Katory M et al. (Katory et al., 2017) study was 9.1% and the one-year DFS was reported as 61.0% in study by P. Luna-Perez et al. (Luna-Perez et al., 1995) which was conducted on primary rectal adenocarcinoma in 1995. Three-year recurrence rate in Katory M et al. (Katory et al., 2017) study was 20.4% and 3 and 5-year DFS ranged from 22.0% to 78.0% in M. B. Nielsen et al. (Nielsen et al., 2012) study and J.A.W. Hagemans et al. (Hagemans et al., 2018) study, respectively. The results suggested that DFS in primary advanced cancers and stage II primary disease is higher than locally recurrence tumors and stage III primary disease.

The main indications for PE include primary, recurrence or locally advanced tumors (cervix, rectum, Vulva, bladder) and recurrence after radiotherapy (cervix) and sarcoma (Ethem Unal et al., 2019; PelvExCollaborative, 2019). While distant metastases include involvement of the iliac vessels, pelvic side wall and para-aortic lymphadenopathy, proximal of sacrum bone to S1/S2 or sciatic foramen are contraindications (Ethem Unal et al., 2019).

Despite the morbidity of more than 50% , the complications of surgery up to 60% and surgical reoperation up to 10% of cases, the number of cases of complete PE is increasing in the world (Lewandowska et al., 2020). Anyway, recent studies tend to more radical surgeries including sidewalls and vessels and perhaps because of this, surgical indications are more common at this time (Ethem Unal et al., 2019; Lewandowska et al., 2020). However, the risk of surgical complications in TPE has been reported to be 31.6-86%. Also, the surgical morbidity for cases of locally advanced cancer is 47.1%, which is 82% in cases of recurrent cancer (Lewandowska et al., 2020; Bogner et al., 2021). The most common postoperative complications after TPE surgery include hemorrhage 31.8%, ileus 25.8%, wound complications 21.3% and respiratory failure 16.1%. the less common complications include sepsis, thromboembolism, heart failure, fistula and abscess (Lewandowska et al., 2020).

One of the most common and significant causes of surgical complications is radiotherapy as neoadjuvant therapy. Although radiotherapy increases the chances of a negative resection margins, but it has no effect on survival for either colorectal or non-colorectal cancer (Bogner et al., 2021). PE has been a revolution in recent years, and according to the studies, the 5-year survival rate in these patients raised up to 60%. Despite the improvement of OS, the complications of radical surgery are still high and margin status is the only significant factor in disease free survival (DFS). The mortality rate decreased from 4-7.2% in last decade to 1.9-2.3% in recent reports (Lewandowska et al., 2020) and the quality of life of patients increased (Brown et al., 2017; Lau et al., 2019).

However, TPE is an invasive procedure and the patients need double stomas for urinary and fecal excretion (Koda et al., 2016). But The opportunity to survive for a long time with less complications and better quality of life is achievable with TPE which is now performed at high volume centers and It is also an alternative method to increase the life expectancy of patients (Yang et al., 2013; Katory et al., 2017; Waters et al., 2019).

A review of the included studies showed that patient overall survival and disease-free survival rates have increased over time, and in high volume centers that are more experienced and possibly better equipped, survival rates are higher. On the other hand, the review of articles showed that in most centers, the sample size is very small and for better conclusions about the survival rate after TPE, a multicenter study with a large sample size and longer follow-up time is recommended.

In addition to the above, the review of the articles showed that in the majority of articles, different types of cancers have been stacked and analyzed, which requires specific studies for each cancer in order to achieve more accurate results.

Finally, more attention to analysis methods can be helpful in summarizing the results. Regarding survival analysis, reporting the survival rate for a specific time (1, 3, 5 years, etc.) with a 95% confidence interval is required for meta-analysis, which was not reported in most studies, and that is an important indicator for generalizing the results of a study to other populations and also to measure the level of uncertainty in a sample variable.

Limitation

It is problematic to distinguish the overall survival and disease-free survival and their relationship with TPE, as primary studies combined diverse types of cancer and dissimilar modalities methods of pelvic exenteration. Most studies have not reported a confidence interval and therefore, meta-analysis was not possible in this study. And the sample size has been limited in most studies, so it is recommended to conduct studies with larger sample sizes to achieve more accurate results.

In conclusion, the results suggested that DFS in primary advanced cancers is higher than locally recurrence tumors. In summary, this review showed that patients’ overall survival and disease-free survival rate have increased over time, especially when PE performed at high volume centers that are more experienced and possibly better equipped. Therefore, it can be suggested that the attitude towards PE as a palliative surgery can be turned into curative surgery.

Abbreviations

DFS: Disease free survival, TPE: Total Pelvic Exenteration, PE: Pelvic Exenteration, OS: Overall survival, MeSH: Medical Subject Headings, PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, SWiM: The Synthesis without Meta-analysis, NOS: Newcastle Ottawa Scale.

Author Contribution Statement

SRM, SA, AM, SRH, SS, AE and AAH conceived the study. All authors contributed to the title and full-text screening. AAH, AE and MSF extracted the data. All authors contributed equally to the initial draft of the manuscript. AAH, MSF, SRM and AE summarized the data and all authors have read and revised and approved the final version of the manuscript. Corresponding Author: Correspondence to Arezoo Esmailzadeh.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the vice chancellor for the research of Tehran University of Medical Sciences for their financial and scientific supports.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and material

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Funding

This study was funded by Tehran University of Medical Sciences. The funder had no role in the study design data collection, analyses, interpretation of the results, or decision to submit results.

Competing interests

All authors declared no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Beitler JJ, Anderson PS, Wadler S, et al. Pelvic exenteration for cervix cancer: would additional intraoperative interstitial brachytherapy improve survival? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;38:143–8. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016(96)00585-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Berek JS, Howe C, Lagasse LD, et al. Pelvic exenteration for recurrent gynecologic malignancy: survival and morbidity analysis of the 45-year experience at UCLA. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;99:153–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.05.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Boey J, Wong J, Ong GB. Pelvic exenteration for locally advanced colorectal carcinoma. Ann Surg. 1982;195:513–8. doi: 10.1097/00000658-198204000-00022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bogner A, Fritzmann J, Müssle B, et al. Pelvic exenteration for colorectal and non-colorectal cancer: a comparison of perioperative and oncological outcome. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2021;36:1701–10. doi: 10.1007/s00384-021-03893-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bramhall S, Harrison J, Burton A, et al. Phase II trial of radical surgery for locally advanced pelvic neoplasia. Br J Surg. 1999;86:805–12. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.1999.01139.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bray F, Laversanne M, Weiderpass E, et al. The ever-increasing importance of cancer as a leading cause of premature death worldwide. Cancer. 2021;127:3029–30. doi: 10.1002/cncr.33587. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown KGM, Solomon MJ, Koh CE. Pelvic Exenteration Surgery: The Evolution of Radical Surgical Techniques for Advanced and Recurrent Pelvic Malignancy. Dis Colon Rectum. 2017;60:745–54. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000839. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Brunschwig A. Complete excision of pelvic viscera for advanced carcinoma; a one-stage abdominoperineal operation with end colostomy and bilateral ureteral implantation into the colon above the colostomy. Cancer. 1948;1:177–83. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(194807)1:2<177::aid-cncr2820010203>3.0.co;2-a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Campbell M, McKenzie JE, Sowden A, et al. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ. 2020;368:l6890. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l6890. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chen HS, Sheen-Chen SM. Total pelvic exenteration for primary local advanced colorectal cancer. World J Surg. 2001;25:1546–9. doi: 10.1007/s00268-001-0167-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chiantera V, Rossi M, De Iaco P, et al. Morbidity after pelvic exenteration for gynecological malignancies: a retrospective multicentric study of 230 patients. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014;24:156–64. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. de Wilt JH, Diederik H-J, Logmans A, et al. Pelvic exenteration for primary and recurrent gynaecological malignancies. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007;134:243–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.07.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Domes TS, Colquhoun PH, Taylor B, et al. Total pelvic exenteration for rectal cancer: outcomes and prognostic factors. CAN J Surg. 2011;54:387–93. doi: 10.1503/cjs.014010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ethem Unal E, Abdullah Yıldız A, Sema Yuksekdag S, et al. Pelvic Exenteration: An Updated Mini-Review from 1948 to 2020. Eur J Clin Exp Med. 2019;2019:347–50. [Google Scholar]
  15. Ferenschild FT, Vermaas M, Verhoef C, et al. Total pelvic exenteration for primary and recurrent malignancies. World J Surg. 2009;33:1502–8. doi: 10.1007/s00268-009-0066-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Goldberg GL, Sukumvanich P, Einstein MH, et al. Total pelvic exenteration: the Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center Experience (1987 to 2003) Gynecol Oncol. 2006;101:261–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.10.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Guimarães GC, Baiocchi G, Ferreira FO, et al. Palliative pelvic exenteration for patients with gynecological malignancies. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;283:1107–12. doi: 10.1007/s00404-010-1544-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hagemans JAW, Rothbarth J, Kirkels WJ, et al. Total pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer in the elderly. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44:1548–54. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.06.033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Ike H, Shimada H, Ohki S, et al. Outcome of total pelvic exenteration for locally recurrent rectal cancer. Hepatogastroenterology. 2003;50:700–3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Ingiulla W, Cosmi EV. Pelvic exenteration for advanced carcinoma of the cervix Some reflections on 241 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1967;99:1083–6. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(67)90347-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kamat AM, Huang SF, Bermejo CE, et al. Total pelvic exenteration: effective palliation of perineal pain in patients with locally recurrent prostate cancer. J Urol. 2003;170:1868–71. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000091656.94825.90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Karlen JR, Piver MS. Reduction of mortality and morbidity associated with pelvic exenteration. Gynecol Oncol. 1975;3:164–7. doi: 10.1016/0090-8258(75)90076-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Katory M, McLean R, Paez E, et al. Short- and long-term outcomes following pelvic exenteration for gynae-oncological and colorectal cancers: A 9 year consecutive single-centre cohort study. Int J Surg. 2017;43:38–45. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.05.037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Ketcham AS, Deckers PJ, Sugarbaker EV, et al. Pelvic exenteration for carcinoma of the uterine cervix A 15-year experience. Cancer. 1970;26:513–21. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(197009)26:3<513::aid-cncr2820260304>3.0.co;2-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Koda K, Shuto K, Matsuo K, et al. Layer-oriented total pelvic exenteration for locally advanced primary colorectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016;31:59–66. doi: 10.1007/s00384-015-2353-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kuhrt MP, Chokshi RJ, Arrese D, et al. Retrospective review of pelvic malignancies undergoing total pelvic exenteration. World J Surg Oncol. 2012;10:110. doi: 10.1186/1477-7819-10-110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Lau YC, Brown KGM, Lee P. Pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer—how much more? J Gastrointest Oncol. 2019;10:1207–14. doi: 10.21037/jgo.2019.01.21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Law WL, Chu KW, Choi HK. Total pelvic exenteration for locally advanced rectal cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 2000;190:78–83. doi: 10.1016/s1072-7515(99)00229-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Lewandowska A, Szubert S, Koper K, et al. Analysis of long-term outcomes in 44 patients following pelvic exenteration due to cervical cancer. World J Surg Oncol. 2020;18:234. doi: 10.1186/s12957-020-01997-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Liu SY, Wang YN, Zhu WQ, et al. Total pelvic exenteration for locally advanced rectal carcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum. 1994;37:172–4. doi: 10.1007/BF02047542. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Lopez MJ, Standiford SB, Skibba JL. Total pelvic exenteration A 50-year experience at the Ellis Fischel Cancer Center. Arch Surg. 1994;129:390–5; discussion 5-6. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.1994.01420280062008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Luna-Perez P. Patterns of recurrence following pelvic exenteration and external radiotherapy for locally advanced primary rectal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 1996;3:526–33. doi: 10.1007/BF02306084. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Luna-Perez P, Rodriguez DF, Flores D, et al. Morbidity and mortality following preoperative radiation therapy and total pelvic exenteration for primary rectal adenocarcinoma. Surg Oncol. 1995;4:295–301. doi: 10.1016/s0960-7404(10)80041-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Mitulescu G, Gluck G, Stîngu C. Radical surgical treatement in pelvic advanced cancer. Ann Fundeni Hospital. 2011;16:87–106. [Google Scholar]
  35. Moriya Y, Akasu T, Fujita S, et al. Total pelvic exenteration with distal sacrectomy for fixed recurrent rectal cancer in the pelvis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47:2047–53; discussion 53-4. doi: 10.1007/s10350-004-0714-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Nedyalkov K, Magunska N, Bechev B, et al. Survival rate and complications after different types of pelvic exenteration for gynecological cancer. Eur J Gynecol Oncol. 2019;40:69–73. [Google Scholar]
  37. Nielsen MB, Rasmussen PC, Lindegaard JC, et al. A 10-year experience of total pelvic exenteration for primary advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer based on a prospective database. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14:1076–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02893.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Park JY, Choi HJ, Jeong SY, et al. The role of pelvic exenteration and reconstruction for treatment of advanced or recurrent gynecologic malignancies: Analysis of risk factors predicting recurrence and survival. J Surg Oncol. 2007;96:560–8. doi: 10.1002/jso.20847. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. PelvExCollaborative Pelvic Exenteration for Advanced Nonrectal Pelvic Malignancy. Ann Surg. 2019;270:899–905. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003533. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Poletto AH, Lopes A, Carvalho AL, et al. Pelvic exenteration and sphincter preservation: an analysis of 96 cases. J Surg Oncol. 2004;86:122–7. doi: 10.1002/jso.20063. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Russo P, Ravindran B, Katz J, et al. Urinary diversion after total pelvic exenteration for rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 1999;6:732–8. doi: 10.1007/s10434-999-0732-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Seagle BL, Dayno M, Strohl AE, et al. Survival after pelvic exenteration for uterine malignancy: A National Cancer Data Base study. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;143:472–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.10.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Shaikh I, Nasir I, Gani A, et al. Robotic total pelvic exenteration - a video vignette. Colorectal Dis. 2021;23:1946. doi: 10.1111/codi.15700. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Sharma S, Odunsi K, Driscoll D, et al. Pelvic exenterations for gynecological malignancies: twenty-year experience at Roswell Park Cancer Institute. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2005;15:475–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2005.15311.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Shingleton HM, Soong SJ, Gelder MS, et al. Clinical and histopathologic factors predicting recurrence and survival after pelvic exenteration for cancer of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;73:1027–34. doi: 10.1097/00006250-198906000-00024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Shirouzu K, Isomoto H, Kakegawa T. Total pelvic exenteration for locally advanced colorectal carcinoma. Br J Surg. 1996;83:32–5. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800830109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209–49. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Takagi H, Morimoto T, Yasue M, et al. Total pelvic exenteration for advanced carcinoma of the lower colon. J Surg Oncol. 1985;28:59–62. doi: 10.1002/jso.2930280114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Terán-Porcayo MA, Zeichner-Gancz I, del-Castillo RA, et al. Pelvic exenteration for recurrent or persistent cervical cancer: experience of five years at the National Cancer Institute in Mexico. Med Oncol. 2006;23:219–23. doi: 10.1385/mo:23:2:219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Vermaas M, Ferenschild FT, Verhoef C, et al. Total pelvic exenteration for primary locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007;33:452–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2006.09.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Vigneswaran HT, Schwarzman LS, Madueke IC, et al. Morbidity and Mortality of Total Pelvic Exenteration for Malignancy in the US. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28:2790–800. doi: 10.1245/s10434-020-09247-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Waters PS, Peacock O, Warrier SK, et al. Evolution of pelvic exenteration surgery- resectional trends and survival outcomes over three decades. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45:2325–33. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2019.07.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Wiig JN, Poulsen JP, Larsen S, et al. Total pelvic exenteration with preoperative irradiation for advanced primary and recurrent rectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2002;168:42–8. doi: 10.1080/110241502317307562. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Yang K, Cai L, Yao L, et al. Laparoscopic total pelvic exenteration for pelvic malignancies: the technique and short-time outcome of 11 cases. World J Surg Oncol. 2015;13:301. doi: 10.1186/s12957-015-0715-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Yang TX, Morris DL, Chua TC. Pelvic exenteration for rectal cancer: a systematic review. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:519–31. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e31827a7868. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Articles from Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention : APJCP are provided here courtesy of West Asia Organization for Cancer Prevention

RESOURCES