Cancer And Reconstructive Surgery In Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects the colon. According to the literature, some thirty percent of UC patients may require a subtotal colectomy and ileostomy due to failure of medical treatment, acute toxic colitis or dysplasia/cancer diagnosis. Some patients choose to get continence restored with either an ileorectal anastomosis (IRA) or an ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA). Worldwide most surgeons prefer an IPAA to an IRA, despite reports of pouchitis, impaired fertility and fecundity. Fear of recurring proctitis and fear of rectal cancer in the remaining rectum is contributing to the choice of an IPAA. Little is known regarding the outcomes of IRA compared with IPAA in UC patients. We aimed to investigate the anorectal function, quality of life (QoL), risk of failure and rectal cancer in patients with UC restored with IRA and IPAA respectively. Methods: Data about all Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients was obtained from the Swedish National Patient Register (NPR) between 1964-2014 and in one study from the Linköping University Hospital medical records 2006-2012. Patients who developed cancer were identified from the Swedish National Cancer Register. We investigated the risk of cancer and inflammation, functional outcome and failure as well as the quality of life for IRA and IPAA patients. Investigation of risk for cancer in IRA and IPAA compared with the background population was performed using survival analytic techniques: uni-and multivariate regression, Kaplan Meier curves and standardized incidence ratio. Results: Twelve percent (7,889 /63,795) of UC patients required colectomy according to the NPR. The relative risk for rectal cancer among patients with an IRA was increased (SIR 8.7). However, the absolute risk was 1.8% after a mean follow up of 8.6 years and the cumulative risk 10- and 20-years after IRA was 1.6% and 5.6%, respectively. Risk factors for rectal cancer were primary sclerosing cholangitis in patients with an IRA (hazard ratio 6.12), and severe dysplasia or cancer of the colon prior to subtotal colectomy in patients with a diverted rectum in place (hazard ratio 3.67). Regarding IPAA, the relative risk to develop rectal cancer was (SIR 0.4) compared with the background population and the absolute risk was only 0.06% after a mean of 12.2 years of follow up. Among patients operated at the Linköping University Hospital: IRA patients reported better overall continence according to the Öresland score with in median3 (IQR 2–5) for IRA (n=38) and 10 (IQR 5–15) for IPAA (n=39, p<0.001). There were no major differences regarding the QoL. According to the NPR, after a median follow up of 12.4 years failure occurred in 265(32%) out of 1112 patients, of which 76 were secondarily reconstructed with an IPAA. Failure of the IPAA occurred in 103 (6%) patients with primary and in 6 (8%) patients after secondary IPAA (log-rank p=0.38). Conclusion: IRA is a safe restorative procedure for selected UC patients. Patients should be aware of the annual postoperative endoscopic evaluation with biopsies as well as the need to the use of local anti-inflammatory preparations. However, IRA should not be offered for UC patients with an associated primary sclerosing cholangitis diagnosis due to the increased risk to develop rectal cancer in their rectal mucosa. In such case, IPAA is probably the treatment of choice.