Imaging in the era of risk-adapted treatment in colon cancer.

The treatment landscape for patients with colon cancer is continuously evolving. Risk-adapted treatment strategies, including neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy, are slowly finding their way into clinical practice and guidelines. Radiologists are pivotal in guiding clinicians toward the most optimal treatment for each colon cancer patient. This review provides an overview of recent and upcoming advances in the diagnostic management of colon cancer and the radiologist's role in the multidisciplinary approach to treating colon cancer.

Adjuvant Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Patients With Locally Advanced Colon Cancer (COLOPEC): 5-Year Results of a Randomized Multicenter Trial.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Whether adjuvant hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) might prevent peritoneal metastases after curative surgery for high-risk colon cancer is an ongoing debate. This study aimed to determine 5-year oncologic outcomes of the randomized multicenter COLOPEC trial, which included patients with clinical or pathologic T4N0-2M0 or perforated colon cancer and randomly assigned (1:1) to either adjuvant systemic chemotherapy and HIPEC (n = 100) or adjuvant systemic chemotherapy alone (n = 102). HIPEC was performed using a one-time administration of oxaliplatin (460 mg/m2, 30 minutes, 42°C, concurrent fluorouracil/leucovorin intravenously), either simultaneously (9%) or within 5-8 weeks (91%) after primary tumor resection. Outcomes were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Long-term data were available of all 202 patients included in the COLOPEC trial, with a median follow-up of 59 months (IQR, 54.5-64.5). No significant difference was found in 5-year overall survival rate between patients assigned to adjuvant HIPEC followed by systemic chemotherapy or only adjuvant systemic chemotherapy (69.6% v 70.9%, log-rank; P = .692). Five-year peritoneal metastases rates were 63.9% and 63.2% (P = .907) and 5-year disease-free survival was 55.7% and 52.3% (log-rank; P = .875), respectively. No differences in quality-of-life outcomes were found. Our findings implicate that adjuvant HIPEC should still be performed in trial setting only.

Whole-body MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging as an adjunct to18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and CT in patients with suspected recurrent colorectal cancer.

AIM: The aim was to explore how findings of whole-body MRI including diffusion-weighted imaging (DW-MRI) compared to the routine diagnostic workup with CT and/or 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/CT in patients with suspected recurrent colorectal cancer (CRC). METHOD: This was an exploratory retrospective analysis of 55 patients with a clinical suspicion of recurrent CRC who underwent DW-MRI following CT and/or FDG-PET/CT. Two readers in consensus interpreted all clinical imaging reports and converted each described lesion into a confidence score (1 = definitely benign to 5 = definitely malignant). DW-MRI findings were compared to the most recent previous CT or PET/CT. Any discrepant or additional DW-MRI findings were documented and compared with histology and/or clinical follow-up (if available). RESULTS: Whole-body MRI including diffusion-weighted imaging (DW-MRI) resulted in discrepant/additional findings in 26/55 (47%) cases; 23/37 (62%) compared to previous CT and 3/18 (17%) compared to previous PET/CT. These included 10 cases where DW-MRI converted previously inconclusive CT (n = 8) or PET/CT (n = 2) findings into a conclusive diagnosis, one where it contradicted a previous CT diagnosis of recurrence, five where DW-MRI diagnosed recurrent disease not previously reported on CT and 10 cases where DW-MRI detected additional lesions compared to CT (n = 9) or PET/CT (n = 1). Eighty-eight per cent of cases with discrepant/additional findings concerned patients with recurrent/metachronous peritoneal metastases. In total, DW-MRI resulted in 42 discrepant/additional lesions; the DW-MRI diagnosis was correct in 76% of these lesions and incorrect (false positive) in 7%. In the remaining 17%, no standard of reference was available. CONCLUSIONS: This explorative study suggests that DW-MRI may be of added value to patients with a clinical suspicion for recurrent CRC, in particular to identify patients with peritoneal metastases. DW-MRI mainly has potential as a 'problem-solver' in patients with inconclusive or negative findings on previous imaging (in particular CT) and to detect additional disease sites in patients already diagnosed with recurrent disease.

Cytoreductive surgery with or without hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with advanced ovarian cancer (OVHIPEC-1): final survival analysis of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The OVHIPEC-1 trial previously showed that the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to interval cytoreductive surgery resulted in improved progression-free and overall survival compared with cytoreductive surgery alone at 4·7 years of follow-up in patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer who were ineligible for primary cytoreduction. We report the final survival outcomes after 10 years of follow-up. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial, patients with primary epithelial stage III ovarian cancer were recruited at eight HIPEC centres in the Netherlands and Belgium. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18-76 years, had not progressed during at least three cycles of neoadjuvant carboplatin plus paclitaxel, had a WHO performance status score of 0-2, normal blood counts, and adequate renal function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo interval cytoreductive surgery without HIPEC (surgery group) or with HIPEC (100 mg/m2 cisplatin; surgery-plus-HIPEC group). Randomisation was done centrally by minimisation with a masked web-based allocation procedure at the time of surgery when residual disease smaller than 10 mm diameter was anticipated, and was stratified by institution, previous suboptimal cytoreductive surgery, and number of abdominal regions involved. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival and a secondary endpoint was overall survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all randomly assigned patients). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00426257, and is closed. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 2007, and April 30, 2016, 245 patients were enrolled and followed up for a median of 10·1 years (95% CI 8·4-12·9) in the surgery group (n=123) and 10·4 years (95% CI 9·5-13·3) in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group (n=122). Recurrence, progression, or death occurred in 114 (93%) patients in the surgery group (median progression-free survival 10·7 months [95% CI 9·6-12·0]) and 109 (89%) patients in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group (14·3 months [12·0-18·5]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·63 [95% CI 0·48-0·83], stratified log-rank p=0·0008). Death occurred in 108 (88%) patients in the surgery group (median overall survival 33·3 months [95% CI 29·0-39·1]) and 100 (82%) patients in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group (44·9 months [95% CI 38·6-55·1]; HR 0·70 [95% CI 0·53-0·92], stratified log-rank p=0·011). INTERPRETATION: These updated survival results confirm the long-term survival benefit of HIPEC in patients with primary stage III epithelial ovarian cancer undergoing interval cytoreductive surgery. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Foundation (KWF Kankerbestrijding).

Evaluation of National Surgical Practice for Lateral Lymph Nodes in Rectal Cancer in an Untrained Setting.

BACKGROUND: Involved lateral lymph nodes (LLNs) have been associated with increased local recurrence (LR) and ipsi-lateral LR (LLR) rates. However, consensus regarding the indication and type of surgical treatment for suspicious LLNs is lacking. This study evaluated the surgical treatment of LLNs in an untrained setting at a national level. METHODS: Patients who underwent additional LLN surgery were selected from a national cross-sectional cohort study regarding patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery in 69 Dutch hospitals in 2016. LLN surgery consisted of either 'node-picking' (the removal of an individual LLN) or 'partial regional node dissection' (PRND; an incomplete resection of the LLN area). For all patients with primarily enlarged (≥7 mm) LLNs, those undergoing rectal surgery with an additional LLN procedure were compared to those  undergoing only rectal resection. RESULTS: Out of 3057 patients, 64 underwent additional LLN surgery, with 4-year LR and LLR rates of 26% and 15%, respectively. Forty-eight patients (75%) had enlarged LLNs, with corresponding recurrence rates of 26% and 19%, respectively. Node-picking (n = 40) resulted in a 20% 4-year LLR, and a 14% LLR after PRND (n = 8; p = 0.677). Multivariable analysis of 158 patients with enlarged LLNs undergoing additional LLN surgery (n = 48) or rectal resection alone (n = 110) showed no significant association of LLN surgery with 4-year LR or LLR, but suggested higher recurrence risks after LLN surgery (LR: hazard ratio [HR] 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7-3.2, p = 0.264; LLR: HR 1.9, 95% CI 0.2-2.5, p = 0.874). CONCLUSION: Evaluation of Dutch practice in 2016 revealed that approximately one-third of patients with primarily enlarged LLNs underwent surgical treatment, mostly consisting of node-picking. Recurrence rates were not significantly affected by LLN surgery, but did suggest worse outcomes. Outcomes of LLN surgery after adequate training requires further research.

Correction: Groen et al. Use of Image-Guided Surgical Navigation during Resection of Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer. Life 2022, 12, 645.

The authors wish to make the following corrections to this paper [...].

Use of Image-Guided Surgical Navigation during Resection of Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer.

Surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) presents several challenges, which is why the percentage of inadequate resections of these tumors is high. In this exploratory study, we evaluate the use of image-guided surgical navigation during resection of LRRC. Patients who were scheduled to undergo surgical resection of LRRC who were deemed by the multidisciplinary team to be at a high risk of inadequate tumor resection were selected to undergo surgical navigation. The risk of inadequate surgery was further determined by the proximity of the tumor to critical anatomical structures. Workflow characteristics of the surgical navigation procedure were evaluated, while the surgical outcome was determined by the status of the resection margin. In total, 20 patients were analyzed. For all procedures, surgical navigation was completed successfully and demonstrated to be accurate, while no complications related to the surgical navigation were discerned. Radical resection was achieved in 14 cases (70%). In five cases (25%), a tumor-positive resection margin (R1) was anticipated during surgery, as extensive radical resection was determined to be compromised. These patients all received intraoperative brachytherapy. In one case (5%), an unexpected R1 resection was performed. Surgical navigation during resection of LRRC is thus safe and feasible and enables accurate surgical guidance.

Standardizing HIPEC and perioperative care for patients with ovarian cancer in the Netherlands using a Delphi-based consensus.

OBJECTIVE: Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) is standard of care in the Netherlands in patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer following interval cytoreductive surgery (CRS). Differences in patient selection, technical aspects, and perioperative management exist between centers performing HIPEC. Standardization aims to reduce unwanted variation in clinical practice. As part of an implementation process, we aimed to standardize perioperative care for patients treated with CRS and HIPEC using a Delphi-based consensus approach. METHODS: We performed a two-phase modified Delphi method involving a multidisciplinary panel of 40 experts who completed a survey on CRS and HIPEC. During a consensus meeting, survey outcomes and available scientific evidence was discussed. Items without consensus (<75% agreement) were adjusted and evaluated in a second survey. RESULTS: Consensus was reached in the first round on 51% of items. After two rounds, consensus was reached on the majority of items (82%) including patient selection, preoperative workup, technical aspects of CRS and HIPEC, and postoperative care. No consensus was reached on the role of HIPEC in rare ovarian cancer types, preoperative bowel preparation, timing to create bowel anastomoses, and manipulation of the perfusate. CONCLUSIONS: Dutch experts reached consensus on most items regarding interval CRS and HIPEC for ovarian cancer. This consensus study may help to align treatment protocols and to minimize practice variation. Topics without consensus may be put on the research agenda of HIPEC for ovarian cancer.

Incidence, treatment and survival of malignant pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma: a population-based study.

INTRODUCTION: Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is an aggressive cancer that primarily arises from the pleura (MPM) or peritoneum (MPeM), mostly due to asbestos exposure. This study reviewed the Dutch population-based incidence, treatment and survival since the national ban on asbestos in 1993. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with MPM or MPeM diagnosed from 1993 to 2018 were selected from the Dutch cancer registry. Annual percentage change (APC) was calculated for (age-specific and sex-specific) revised European standardised incidence rates (RESR). Treatment pattern and Kaplan-Meier overall survival analyses were performed. RESULTS: In total, 12 168 patients were included in the study. For male patients younger than 80 years, the MM incidence significantly decreased in the last decade (APC ranging between -9.4% and -1.8%, p<0.01). Among both male and female patients aged over 80 years, the incidence significantly increased during the entire study period (APC 3.3% and 4.6%, respectively, p<0.01). From 2003 onwards, the use of systemic chemotherapy increased especially for MPM (from 9.3% to 39.4%). Overall, 62.2% of patients received no antitumour treatment. The most common reasons for not undergoing antitumour treatment were patient preference (42%) and performance status (25.6%). The median overall survival improved from 7.3 (1993-2003) to 8.9 (2004-2011) and 9.3 months from 2012 to 2018 (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The peak of MM incidence was reached around 2010 in the Netherlands, and currently the incidence is declining in most age groups. The use of systemic chemotherapy increased from 2003, which likely resulted in improved overall survival over time. The majority of patients do not receive treatment though and prognosis is still poor.

Differences in the distribution of peritoneal metastases in right- versus left-sided colon cancer on MRI.

PURPOSE: Right-sided colon tumors with peritoneal metastases (PM) are associated with a poorer prognosis than left-sided tumors. We hypothesized that a different pattern of spread could be characterized with abdominopelvic MRI. The objective of this study was to explore the spread of PM in relation to the primary tumor location on MRI. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with PM from colon cancer referred to be considered for CRS-HIPEC at a single tertiary referral center. Patients with colon cancer were eligible if they had undergone an abdominopelvic MRI scan following a clinical diagnosis of PM. The frequency of affected PCI regions on MRI (MRI-PCI) was assessed and compared between tumor sidedness. RESULTS: One hundred eighteen patients were included with a median age of 65 (IQR: 56-72). 46% percent were male. The median MRI-PCI was 10 (IQR: 5-16) and 8 (IQR: 4-11) for right- and left-sided tumors, respectively (p = 0.39), and the median number of affected regions was 4 (IQR: 2-7 for right-sided and IQR 2-5 for left-sided tumors). PM was most frequently found close to the primary tumor. The odds ratio of patients with PM of left sided to be affected with PM in the upper abdominal regions was 0.42 (95% CI: 0.20-0.90) and with PM on the small bowels or mesentery was 0.42 (95% CI: 0.19-0.92) over a patient with PM of right-sided colon cancer. CONCLUSION: MRI can help to assess the spread of PM in colonic cancer. In right-sided tumors, the small bowel and upper abdominal regions are more frequently affected.

Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Ovarian and Colorectal Cancer: A Review.

IMPORTANCE: The peritoneal surface is a common site of disease in ovarian and colorectal cancer. Peritoneal metastases carry a poor prognosis, despite maximal therapeutic efforts, including surgical removal of tumor deposits and intravenous chemotherapy. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a single intraoperative procedure that delivers chemotherapy directly into the abdominal cavity, leading to high intracellular drug concentration at the peritoneal surface. This review describes the current knowledge regarding the mechanism of action, safety, and efficacy of HIPEC in the treatment of peritoneal metastases from epithelial ovarian and colorectal cancers and explores current knowledge gaps. OBSERVATIONS: Toxic effects of HIPEC are limited. Evidence from a randomized trial shows improved recurrence-free and overall survival after HIPEC in patients with ovarian cancer who are ineligible for primary cytoreductive surgery (CRS). The effect of HIPEC for patients with ovarian cancer undergoing primary CRS or CRS for recurrent disease has not yet been determined, and results of ongoing trials must be awaited. A recent study in patients with peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer did not show a benefit of HIPEC when added to perioperative chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Based on available evidence, various international guidelines include the option to add HIPEC to interval CRS for patients with stage III ovarian cancer. The role of HIPEC in colorectal cancer is less well defined. Future studies will need to tailor patient selection, timing, and optimal regimens of HIPEC to improve the effectiveness of this specialized treatment in ovarian, colorectal, and other tumor types.

Risk of metachronous peritoneal metastases in patients with pT4a versus pT4b colon cancer: An international multicentre cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: With evolving treatment strategies aiming at prevention or early detection of metachronous peritoneal metastases (PM), identification of high-risk colon cancer patients becomes increasingly important. This study aimed to evaluate differences between pT4a (peritoneal penetration) and pT4b (invasion of other organs/structures) subcategories regarding risk of PM and other oncological outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From eight databases deriving from four countries, patients who underwent curative intent treatment for pT4N0-2M0 primary colon cancer were included. Primary outcome was the 5-year metachronous PM rate assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Independent predictors for metachronous PM were identified by Cox regression analysis. Secondary endpoints included 5-year local and distant recurrence rates, and 5-year disease free and overall survival (DFS, OS). RESULTS: In total, 665 patients with pT4a and 187 patients with pT4b colon cancer were included. Median follow-up was 38 months (IQR 23-60). Five-year PM rate was 24.7% and 12.2% for pT4a and pT4b categories, respectively (p = 0.005). Independent predictors for metachronous PM were female sex, right-sided colon cancer, peritumoral abscess, pT4a, pN2, R1 resection, signet ring cell histology and postoperative surgical site infections. Five-year local recurrence rate was 14% in both pT4a and pT4b cancer (p = 0.138). Corresponding five-year distant metastases rates were 35% and 28% (p = 0.138). Five-year DFS and OS were 54% vs. 62% (p = 0.095) and 63% vs. 68% (p = 0.148) for pT4a vs. pT4b categories, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients with pT4a colon cancer have a higher risk of metachronous PM than pT4b patients. This observation has important implications for early detection and future adjuvant treatment strategies.

Perioperative Systemic Therapy vs Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy Alone for Resectable Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: To date, no randomized clinical trials have investigated perioperative systemic therapy relative to cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) alone for resectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM). Objective: To assess the feasibility and safety of perioperative systemic therapy in patients with resectable CPM and the response of CPM to neoadjuvant treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: An open-label, parallel-group phase 2 randomized clinical trial in all 9 Dutch tertiary centers for the surgical treatment of CPM enrolled participants between June 15, 2017, and January 9, 2019. Participants were patients with pathologically proven isolated resectable CPM who did not receive systemic therapy within 6 months before enrollment. Interventions: Randomization to perioperative systemic therapy or CRS-HIPEC alone. Perioperative systemic therapy comprised either four 3-week neoadjuvant and adjuvant cycles of CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin), six 2-week neoadjuvant and adjuvant cycles of FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin), or six 2-week neoadjuvant cycles of FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan) and either four 3-week adjuvant cycles of capecitabine or six 2-week adjuvant cycles of fluorouracil with leucovorin. Bevacizumab was added to the first 3 (CAPOX) or 4 (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI) neoadjuvant cycles. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportions of macroscopic complete CRS-HIPEC and Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher postoperative morbidity. Key secondary outcomes were centrally assessed rates of objective radiologic and major pathologic response of CPM to neoadjuvant treatment. Analyses were done modified intention-to-treat in patients starting neoadjuvant treatment (experimental arm) or undergoing upfront surgery (control arm). Results: In 79 patients included in the analysis (43 [54%] men; mean [SD] age, 62 [10] years), experimental (n = 37) and control (n = 42) arms did not differ significantly regarding the proportions of macroscopic complete CRS-HIPEC (33 of 37 [89%] vs 36 of 42 [86%] patients; risk ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.88-1.23; P = .74) and Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher postoperative morbidity (8 of 37 [22%] vs 14 of 42 [33%] patients; risk ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.31-1.37; P = .25). No treatment-related deaths occurred. Objective radiologic and major pathologic response rates of CPM to neoadjuvant treatment were 28% (9 of 32 evaluable patients) and 38% (13 of 34 evaluable patients), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized phase 2 trial in patients diagnosed with resectable CPM, perioperative systemic therapy seemed feasible, safe, and able to induce response of CPM, justifying a phase 3 trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02758951.

Cytoreduction and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) Versus Surgery Without HIPEC for Goblet-Cell Carcinoids and Mixed Adenoneuroendocrine Carcinomas: Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Centers in the Netherlands and Belgium.

BACKGROUND: The value of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for patients with peritoneally metastasized goblet-cell carcinoids (GCCs) and mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinomas (MANECs) is currently unclear. We compared outcomes of CRS-HIPEC to surgery alone for peritoneally metastasized GCCs and MANECs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two cohorts were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (n = 569): patients with peritoneally metastasized GCCs and MANECs treated with CRS-HIPEC in Dutch and Belgian centers (n = 45), and patients treated with surgery alone. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were morbidity and hospital mortality. After propensity score matching, OS was compared in univariate and multivariate analyses. A systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines from database inception to June 25, 2018. RESULTS: After matching for sex, tumor stage, lymph node stage, and liver metastases, CRS-HIPEC was associated with improved median OS in the combined GCC and MANEC group and the separate GCC subgroup in univariate (GCC + MANEC: 39 vs. 12 months, P < .001; GCC: 39 vs. 12 months, P = .017) and multivariate analysis (GCC + MANEC: hazard ratio 4.27, 95% confidence interval 1.88-9.66, P = .001; GCC: hazard ratio 2.77, 95% confidence interval 1.06-7.26, P = .038). Acceptable grade III-IV morbidity (17.5%) and mortality (0) were seen after CRS-HIPEC. The literature review supported these findings. CONCLUSION: CRS-HIPEC is associated with substantial survival benefit in patients with peritoneally metastasized GCCs and MANECs compared to surgery alone and is a safe treatment option. These data support centralized care of GCC and MANEC patients with peritoneal spread in expert centers offering CRS-HIPEC.

Association of Image-Guided Navigation With Complete Resection Rate in Patients With Locally Advanced Primary and Recurrent Rectal Cancer: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Importance: The percentage of tumor-positive surgical resection margin rates in patients treated for locally advanced primary or recurrent rectal cancer is high. Image-guided navigation may improve complete resection rates. Objective: To ascertain whether image-guided navigation during rectal cancer resection improves complete resection rates compared with surgical procedures without navigation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective single-center nonrandomized controlled trial was conducted at the Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The prospective or navigation cohort included adult patients with locally advanced primary or recurrent rectal cancer who underwent resection with image-guided navigation between February 1, 2016, and September 30, 2019, at the tertiary referral hospital. Clinical results of this cohort were compared with results of the historical cohort, which was composed of adult patients who received rectal cancer resection without image-guided navigation between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2015. Intervention: Rectal cancer resection with image-guided navigation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the complete resection rate, measured by the amount of tumor-negative resection margin rates. Secondary outcomes were safety and usability of the system. Safety was evaluated by the number of navigation system-associated surgical adverse events. Usability was assessed from responses to a questionnaire completed by the participating surgeons after each procedure. Results: In total, 33 patients with locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer were included (23 men [69.7%]; median [interquartile range] age at start of treatment, 61 [55.0-69.0] years). With image-guided navigation, a radical resection (R0) was achieved in 13 of 14 patients (92.9%; 95% CI, 66.1%-99.8%) after primary resection of locally advanced tumors and in 15 of 19 patients (78.9%; 95% CI, 54.4%-94.0%) after resection of recurrent rectal cancer. No navigation system-associated complications occurred before or during surgical procedures. In the historical cohort, 142 patients who underwent resection without image-guided navigation were included (95 men [66.9%]; median [interquartile range] age at start of treatment, 64 [55.0-70.0] years). In these patients, an R0 resection was accomplished in 85 of 101 patients (84.2%) with locally advanced rectal cancer and in 20 of 41 patients (48.8%) with recurrent rectal cancer. A significant difference was found between the navigation and historical cohorts after recurrent rectal cancer resection (21.1% vs 51.2%; P = .047). For locally advanced primary tumor resection, the difference was not significant (7.1% vs 15.8%; P = .69). Surgeons stated in completed questionnaires that the navigation system improved decisiveness and helped with tumor localization. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this study suggest that image-guided navigation used during rectal cancer resection is safe and intuitive and may improve tumor-free resection margin rates in recurrent rectal cancer. Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register Identifier: NTR7184.

Perineal wound closure using gluteal turnover flap or primary closure after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: study protocol of a randomised controlled multicentre trial (BIOPEX-2 study).

BACKGROUND: Abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer is associated with high morbidity of the perineal wound, and controversy exists about the optimal closure technique. Primary perineal wound closure is still the standard of care in the Netherlands. Biological mesh closure did not improve wound healing in our previous randomised controlled trial (BIOPEX-study). It is suggested, based on meta-analysis of cohort studies, that filling of the perineal defect with well-vascularised tissue improves perineal wound healing. A gluteal turnover flap seems to be a promising method for this purpose, and with the advantage of not having a donor site scar. The aim of this study is to investigate whether a gluteal turnover flap improves the uncomplicated perineal wound healing after APR for rectal cancer. METHODS: Patients with primary or recurrent rectal cancer who are planned for APR will be considered eligible in this multicentre randomised controlled trial. Exclusion criteria are total exenteration, sacral resection above S4/S5, intersphincteric APR, biological mesh closure of the pelvic floor, collagen disorders, and severe systemic diseases. A total of 160 patients will be randomised between gluteal turnover flap (experimental arm) and primary closure (control arm). The total follow-up duration is 12 months, and outcome assessors and patients will be blinded for type of perineal wound closure. The primary outcome is the percentage of uncomplicated perineal wound healing on day 30, defined as a Southampton wound score of less than two. Secondary outcomes include time to perineal wound closure, incidence of perineal hernia, the number, duration and nature of the complications, re-interventions, quality of life and urogenital function. DISCUSSION: The uncomplicated perineal wound healing rate is expected to increase from 65 to 85% by using the gluteal turnover flap. With proven effectiveness, a quick implementation of this relatively simple surgical technique is expected to take place. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was retrospectively registered at Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04004650 on July 2, 2019.

Accurate surgical navigation with real-time tumor tracking in cancer surgery.

In the past decades, image-guided surgery has evolved rapidly. In procedures with a relatively fixed target area, like neurosurgery and orthopedics, this has led to improved patient outcomes. In cancer surgery, intraoperative guidance could be of great benefit to secure radical resection margins since residual disease is associated with local recurrence and poor survival. However, most tumor lesions are mobile with a constantly changing position. Here, we present an innovative technique for real-time tumor tracking in cancer surgery. In this study, we evaluated the feasibility of real-time tumor tracking during rectal cancer surgery. The application of real-time tumor tracking using an intraoperative navigation system is feasible and safe with a high median target registration accuracy of 3 mm. This technique allows oncological surgeons to obtain real-time accurate information on tumor location, as well as critical anatomical information. This study demonstrates that real-time tumor tracking is feasible and could potentially decrease positive resection margins and improve patient outcome.

Extent of Peritoneal Metastases on Preoperative DW-MRI is Predictive of Disease-Free and Overall Survival for CRS/HIPEC Candidates with Colorectal Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether the extent of peritoneal metastases (PMs) on preoperative diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) can be used as a biomarker of disease-free and overall survival in patients with colorectal cancer who are considered for cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC). METHODS: For this retrospective cohort study, patients with PMs considered for CRS/HIPEC who underwent DW-MRI for preoperative staging in 2016-2017 were included. The DW-MRI protocol consisted of diffusion-weighted, T2-weighted, and pre- and post-gadolinium T1-weighted imaging of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. DW-MRI images were evaluated by two independent readers to determine the extent of PMs represented by the Peritoneal Cancer Index (MRI-PCI), as well as extraperitoneal metastases. Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to determine the prognostic value of DW-MRI for overall and disease-free survival. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients were included. CRS/HIPEC was planned for 53 patients and completed in 50 patients (60.5%). Median follow-up after DW-MRI was 23 months (interquartile range 13-24). The MRI-PCI of both readers showed prognostic value for overall survival, independently of whether R1 resection was achieved (hazard ratio [HR] 1.06-1.08; p < 0.05). For the patients who received successful CRS/HIPEC, the MRI-PCI also showed independent prognostic value for disease-free survival for both readers (HR 1.09-1.10; p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The extent of PMs on preoperative DW-MRI is an independent predictor of overall and disease-free survival and should therefore be considered as a non-invasive prognostic biomarker.

Diagnostic Laparoscopy and Abdominal Cytology Reliably Detect Peritoneal Metastases in Patients with Urachal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Urachal adenocarcinoma (UrAC) is a rare malignancy that can cause peritoneal metastases (PM). Analogous to other enteric malignancies, selected patients with limited PM of UrAC can be treated by cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to address the value of diagnostic laparoscopy (DLS) and abdominal cytology (ACyt) for the detection and evaluation of the extent of PM in patients with UrAC. METHODS: A consecutive series of cN0M0 patients with UrAC who underwent DLS with or without ACyt at a tertiary referral center between 2000 and 2018 was assessed. Patients were staged with computed tomography (CT) and/or positron emission tomography (PET)/CT or bone scan. DLS was performed to rule out PM and to evaluate the extent and resectability of PM if seen on imaging. Sensitivity and specificity values were calculated for imaging, DLS, ACyt, and the combination of DLS and ACyt. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients with UrAC underwent DLS. ACyt was obtained in 19 patients. Four patients had suspicion of PM on imaging. In the 28 patients who were PM-negative on imaging, DLS and ACyt revealed PM in 6 (21%) patients, of whom 5 had macroscopically visible PM; 1 patient had positive ACyt without visible PM. Sensitivity of combined DLS/ACyt for the detection of PM was 91%, with a specificity of 100%, whereas sensitivity of imaging was 36%. DLS correctly predicted resectability in all patients. CONCLUSION: Combined DLS/ACyt proved an effective tool to detect occult PM and to evaluate the extent of PM to select UrAC patients for possible treatment with CRS/HIPEC.