Introduction The empty pelvis syndrome is a significant source of morbidity following pelvic exenteration surgery. It remains poorly defined with research in this field being heterogeneous and of low quality. Furthermore, there has been minimal engagement with patient representatives following pelvic exenteration with respect to the empty pelvic syndrome. 'PelvEx-Beating the empty pelvis syndrome' aims to engage both patient representatives and healthcare professionals to achieve an international consensus on a core outcome set, pathophysiology and mitigation of the empty pelvis syndrome. Methods and analysis A modified-Delphi approach will be followed with a three-stage study design. First, statements will be longlisted using a recent systematic review, healthcare professional event, patient and public engagement, and Delphi piloting. Second, statements will be shortlisted using up to three rounds of online modified Delphi. Third, statements will be confirmed and instruments for measurable statements selected using a virtual patient-representative consensus meeting, and finally a face-to-face healthcare professional consensus meeting. Ethics and dissemination The University of Southampton Faculty of Medicine ethics committee has approved this protocol, which is registered as a study with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative. Publication of this study will increase the potential for comparative research to further understanding and prevent the empty pelvis syndrome.

Background: The multidisciplinary perioperative and anaesthetic management of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration is essential for good surgical outcomes. No clear guidelines have been established, and there is wide variation in clinical practice internationally. This consensus statement consolidates clinical experience and best practice collectively, and systematically addresses key domains in the perioperative and anaesthetic management.Methods: The modified Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus from the PelvEx Collaborative. The process included one round of online questionnaire involving controlled feedback and structured participant response, two rounds of editing, and one round of web-based voting. It was held from December 2019 to February 2020. Consensus was defined as more than 80 per cent agreement, whereas less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus.Results: The final consensus document contained 47 voted statements, across six key domains of perioperative and anaesthetic management in pelvic exenteration, comprising preoperative assessment and preparation, anaesthetic considerations, perioperative management, anticipating possible massive haemorrhage, stress response and postoperative critical care, and pain management. Consensus recommendations were developed, based on consensus agreement achieved on 34 statements.Conclusion: The perioperative and anaesthetic management of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration is best accomplished by a dedicated multidisciplinary team with relevant domain expertise in the setting of a specialized tertiary unit. This consensus statement has addressed key domains within the framework of current perioperative and anaesthetic management among patients undergoing pelvic exenteration, with an international perspective, to guide clinical practice, and has outlined areas for future clinical research.

Background: A resection with clear margins (R0 resection) is the most important prognostic factor in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). However, this is achieved in only 60 per cent of patients. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the addition of induction chemotherapy to neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation improves the R0 resection rate in LRRC. Methods: This multicentre, international, open-label, phase III, parallel-arms study will enrol 364 patients with resectable LRRC after previous partial or total mesorectal resection without synchronous distant metastases or recent chemo- and/or radiotherapy treatment. Patients will be randomized to receive either induction chemotherapy (three 3-week cycles of CAPOX (capecitabine, oxaliplatin), four 2-week cycles of FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) or FOLFORI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan)) followed by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery (experimental arm) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery alone (control arm). Tumours will be restaged using MRI and, in the experimental arm, a further cycle of CAPOX or two cycles of FOLFOX/FOLFIRI will be administered before chemoradiotherapy in case of stable or responsive disease. The radiotherapy dose will be 25 x 2.0 Gy or 28 x 1.8 Gy in radiotherapy-naive patients, and 15 x 2.0 Gy in previously irradiated patients. The concomitant chemotherapy agent will be capecitabine administered twice daily at a dose of 825 mg/m(2) on radiotherapy days. The primary endpoint of the study is the R0 resection rate. Secondary endpoints are long-term oncological outcomes, radiological and pathological response, toxicity, postoperative complications, costs, and quality of life. Discussion: This trial protocol describes the PelvEx II study. PelvEx II, designed as a multicentre, open-label, phase III, parallel-arms study, is the first randomized study to compare induction chemotherapy followed by neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation and surgery with neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation and surgery alone in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer, with the aim of improving the number of R0 resections.

Aim At presentation, 15-20% of patients with rectal cancer already have synchronous liver metastases. The aim of this study was to determine the surgical and survival outcomes in patients with advanced rectal cancer who underwent combined pelvic exenteration and liver (oligometastatic) resection. Method Data from 20 international institutions that performed simultaneous pelvic exenteration and liver resection between 2007 and 2017 were accumulated. Primarily, we examined perioperative outcomes, morbidity and mortality. We also assessed the impact that margin status had on survival. Results Of 128 patients, 72 (56.2%) were men with a median age of 60 years [interquartile range (IQR) 15 years]. The median size of the liver oligometastatic deposits was 2 cm (IQR 1.8 cm). The median duration of surgery was 406 min (IQR 240 min), with a median blood loss of 1090 ml (IQR 2010 ml). A negative resection margin (R0 resection) was achieved in 73.5% of pelvic exenterations and 66.4% of liver resections. The 30-day mortality rate was 1.6%, and 32% of patients had a major postoperative complication. The 5-year overall survival for patients in whom an R0 resection of both primary and metastatic disease was achieved was 54.6% compared with 20% for those with an R1/R2 resection (P = 0.006). Conclusion Simultaneous pelvic exenteration and liver resection is feasible, with acceptable morbidity and mortality. Simultaneous resection should only be performed where an R0 resection of both pelvic and hepatic disease is anticipated.

Aim We aim to compare machine learning with neural network performance in predicting R0 resection (R0), length of stay > 14 days (LOS), major complication rates at 30 days postoperatively (COMP) and survival greater than 1 year (SURV) for patients having pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer. Method A deep learning computer was built and the programming environment was established. The PelvEx Collaborative database was used which contains anonymized data on patients who underwent pelvic exenteration for locally advanced or locally recurrent colorectal cancer between 2004 and 2014. Logistic regression, a support vector machine and an artificial neural network (ANN) were trained. Twenty per cent of the data were used as a test set for calculating prediction accuracy for R0, LOS, COMP and SURV. Model performance was measured by plotting receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and calculating the area under the ROC curve (AUROC). Results Machine learning models and ANNs were trained on 1147 cases. The AUROC for all outcome predictions ranged from 0.608 to 0.793 indicating modest to moderate predictive ability. The models performed best at predicting LOS > 14 days with an AUROC of 0.793 using preoperative and operative data. Visualized logistic regression model weights indicate a varying impact of variables on the outcome in question. Conclusion This paper highlights the potential for predictive modelling of large international databases. Current data allow moderate predictive ability of both complex ANNs and more classic methods.

Objective: To determine factors associated with outcomes following pelvic exenteration for advanced nonrectal pelvic malignancy. Background: The PelvEx Collaborative provides large volume data from specialist centers to ascertain factors associated with improved outcomes. Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent pelvic exenteration for nonrectal pelvic malignancy between 2006 and 2017 were identified from 22 tertiary centers. Patient demographics, neoadjuvant therapy, histopathological assessment, length of stay, 30-day major complication/mortality rate were recorded. The primary endpoints were factors associated with survival. The secondary endpoints included the difference in margin rates across the cohorts, impact of neoadjuvant treatment on survival, associated morbidity, and mortality. Results: One thousand two hundred ninety-three patients were identified. 40.4% (n = 523) had gynecological malignancies (endometrial, ovarian, cervical, and vaginal), 35.7% (n = 462) urological (bladder), 18.1% (n = 234) anal, and 5.7% had sarcoma (n = 74). The median age across the cohort was 63 years (range, 23-85). The median 30-day mortality rate was 1.7%, with the highest rates occurring following exenteration for recurrent sarcoma or locally advanced cervical cancer (3.3% each). The median length of hospital stay was 17.5 days. 34.5% of patients experienced a major complication, with highest rate occurring in those having salvage surgery for anal cancer. Multivariable analysis showed R0 resection was the main factor associated with long-term survival. The 3-year overall-survival rate for R0 resection was 48% for endometrial malignancy, 40.6% for ovarian, 49.4% for cervical, 43.8% for vaginal, 59% for bladder, 48.3% for anal, and 48.1% for sarcoma. Conclusion: Pelvic exenteration remains an important treatment in selected patients with advanced or recurrent nonrectal pelvic malignancy. The range in 3-year overall survival following R0 resection (40%-59%) reflects the diversity of tumor types.

Objective: Palliative pelvic exenteration (PPE) is a technically complex operation with high morbidity and mortality rates, considered in patients with limited life expectancy. There is little evidence to guide practice. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the impact of PPE on symptom relief and quality of life (QoL). Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines using Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASe, and PubMed databases for studies reporting on outcomes of PPE for symptom relief or QoL Descriptive statistics were used on pooled patient cohorts. Results: Twenty-three historical cohorts and case series were included, comprising 509 patients. No comparative studies were found. Most malignancies were of colorectal, gynaecological and urological origin. Common indications for PPE were pain, symptomatic fistula, bleeding, malodour, obstruction and pelvic sepsis. The pooled median postoperative morbidity rate was 53.6% (13-100%), the median in-hospital mortality was 63% (0-66.7%), and median OS was 14 months (4-40 months). Some symptom relief was reported in a median of 79% (50-100%) of the patients, although the magnitude of effect was poorly measured. Data for QoL measures were inconclusive. Five studies discouraged performing PPE in any patient, while 18 studies concluded that the procedure can be considered in highly selected patients. Conclusion: Available evidence on PPE is of low-quality. Morbidity and mortality rates are high with a short median OS interval. While some symptom relief may be afforded by this procedure, evidence for improvement in QoL is limited. A highly selective individualised approach is required to optimise the risk:benefit equation. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd, BASO - The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.

BackgroundPelvic exenteration for locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is associated with variable outcomes, with the majority of data from single-centre series. This study analysed data from an international collaboration to determine robust parameters that could inform clinical decision-making. MethodsAnonymized data on patients who had pelvic exenteration for LRRC between 2004 and 2014 were accrued from 27 specialist centres. The primary endpoint was survival. The impact of resection margin, bone resection, node status and use of neoadjuvant therapy (before exenteration) was assessed. ResultsOf 1184 patients, 614 (519 per cent) had neoadjuvant therapy. A clear resection margin (R0 resection) was achieved in 554 per cent of operations. Twenty-one patients (18 per cent) died within 30days and 380 (321 per cent) experienced a major complication. Median overall survival was 36months following R0 resection, 27months after R1 resection and 16months following R2 resection (P<0001). Patients who received neoadjuvant therapy had more postoperative complications (unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 153), readmissions (unadjusted OR 233) and radiological reinterventions (unadjusted OR 212). Three-year survival rates were 481 per cent, 339 per cent and 15 per cent respectively. Bone resection (when required) was associated with a longer median survival (36 versus 29months; P<0001). Node-positive patients had a shorter median overall survival than those with node-negative disease (22 versus 29months respectively). Multivariable analysis identified margin status and bone resection as significant determinants of long-term survival. ConclusionNegative margins and bone resection (where needed) were identified as the most important factors influencing overall survival. Neoadjuvant therapy before pelvic exenteration did not affect survival, but was associated with higher rates of readmission, complications and radiological reintervention. Complete resection is key

Multimodal treatment of rectal cancer has improved outcome, but some patients still experience local recurrence, which is a major therapeutic challenge after previous radiotherapy (RT). Re-irradiation may improve the rate of radical surgery (R0), as reported in previous studies, where hyperfractionated chemo-RT resulted in 35% R0 rate. Surgery, RT techniques, and imaging have improved recent years, allowing for increased treatment precision with less morbidity. This study investigates re-irradiation of patients with local recurrence in a phase II clinical, imaging and translational study. Trial design: A prospective multicenter phase II, open label, non-randomised study. Therapy: External beam RT of 40.8 Gy / 1.2 F BID by intensity-modulated RT + CBCT guidance, concomitant capecitabine 825 mg/m2 BID all RT days, and surgery 8 weeks post-RT. The primary endpoint is R0 rate. Secondary objectives: Recurrence-free, disease-free and overall survival, acute and late toxicity, patient reported outcomes, translational research, imaging studies for future adaptive RT, mapping of recurrences according to previous RT, and simulation studies of other RT modalities (proton therapy). Main inclusion criteria: Locally recurrent rectal cancer, previous pelvic RT and surgery, potentially resectable tumor, age ≥18 years, adequate organ function, acceptable bowel and bladder function, acceptance for translational research. Main exclusion criteria; central small recurrences deemed resectable, non-resectable distant metastases, medical comorbidities precluding radical surgery, previous RT <12 months prior to recurrence, unability for MRI or PET-CT. Statistics; Simons two-stage design, with expected R0 of 30% by ITT and expected R0 increase to 45%, σ = 0:05; 1 - &bgr;= 0:8. Total sample size is 65 patients. Centers in Denmark and Norway are currently recruiting. Legal entity responsible for the study: Aarhus University Hospital No external funding, it is an academic study. Clinical data collection and treatment-related costs will be covered by the local clinical trial unit/ department. Financial support for the sub-studies for translational research, imaging studies and treatment plan simulations will be funded independently, by external funding.

Purpose: The aim was to implement a fast-track model in a colorectal unit. We evaluated its effects on hospital stay and complication rate after elective open colonic surgery. Methods: A fast-track programme was fully implemented, with a dedicated staff and a schedule for all perioperative procedures which included provision of information to patients, surgical guidelines, mobilisation and postoperative care. All previously existing procedures were modified according to previously published guidelines. Criteria for success with regard to the length of hospital stay and rates and types of complications were defined. Fast-tracked patients were compared with patients not included in the programmes that were operated during the same period. Results: 131 fast-tracked patients were compared with 39 control patients. The fast track significantly reduced the median hospital stay from 7 to 3 days (p < 0.0001). There was no difference in complication rates between the two groups, and no major complications were observed after early discharge from the hospital. The readmission rate was 15% in the fast-track group and 16% with the control patients. Conclusion: Implementation of a fast track after open elective colonic surgery is safe and reduces the length of hospital stay.