Diagnostic Performance of MRI and FDG PET/CT for Preoperative Locoregional Staging of Colon Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: CT is the standard-of-care test for colon cancer (CC) preoperative locoregional staging, but has limited diagnostic performance. More accurate preoperative staging would guide selection among expanding patient-tailored treatment options. Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of MRI for T and N staging and of FDG PET/CT for N staging in CC locoregional staging through systematic review. Evidence Acquisition: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched through December 31, 2023 for studies reporting diagnostic performance of MRI or FDG PET/CT for primary (nonrectal) CC before resection without neoadjuvant therapy using histopathology as reference. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Publication bias was assessed with Deeks' funnel plot. Primary outcomes were estimated pooled predictive values, stratified by T and N categories for MRI and N categories for PET/CT. Secondary outcomes were pooled sensitivity and specificity. Evidence Synthesis: The systematic review included 11 MRI studies (686 patients) and five PET/CT studies (408 patients). Thirteen studies had at least one risk of bias or concern of applicability. Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry indicated possible publication bias in MRI studies for differentiation of T3cd-4 from T1-3ab disease and N- from N+ disease. For MRI, for discriminating T1-2 from T3-4 disease, PPV was 64.8% (95% CI [52.9-75.5%]), and NPV was 88.9% (95% CI [82.7-93.7%]); for discriminating T1-3ab from T3cd-4 disease, PPV was 83.4% (95% CI [75.0-90.3%]), and NPV was 74.6% (95% CI [58.2-86.7%]); for discriminating T1-3 from T4 disease, PPV was 94.0% (95% CI [89.4-97.3%]), and NPV was 39.9% (95% CI [24.9-56.6%]); for discriminating N- from N+ disease, PPV was 74.9% (95% CI [69.3-80.0%]), and NPV was 53.9% (95% CI [45.3-62.0%]). For PET/CT, for discriminating N- from N+ disease, PPV was 76.4% (95% CI [67.9-85.1%]), and NPV was 68.2% (95% CI [56.8-78.6%]). Across outcomes, MRI and PET/CT exhibited pooled sensitivity of 55.1-81.4% and pooled specificity of 70.3-88.1%. Conclusion: MRI had strongest predictive performance for T1-2 and T4 disease. MRI and PET/CT had otherwise limited predictive values, sensitivity, and specificity for evaluated outcomes related T and N staging. Clinical Impact: MRI and FDG PET/CT had overall limited utility for preoperative locoregional staging in colon cancer.

Indocyanine green near-infrared fluorescence bowel perfusion assessment to prevent anastomotic leakage in minimally invasive colorectal surgery (AVOID): a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage is a severe postoperative complication in colorectal surgery and compromised bowel perfusion is considered a major contributing factor. Conventional methods to assess bowel perfusion have a low predictive value for anastomotic leakage. We therefore aimed to evaluate the efficacy of real-time assessment with near-infrared (NIR) fluorescence imaging with indocyanine green (ICG) in the prevention of anastomotic leakage. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was done in eight hospitals in the Netherlands. We included adults (aged >18 years) who were scheduled for laparoscopic or robotic colorectal surgery (with planned primary anastomosis) for benign and malignant diseases. Preoperatively, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to fluorescence-guided bowel anastomosis (FGBA) or conventional bowel anastomosis (CBA) by variable block randomisation (block sizes 4, 6, and 8) and stratified by site. The operating surgeon and investigators analysing the data were not masked to group assignment. Patients were unmasked after the surgical procedure or after study end. In the FGBA group, surgeons marked anastomosis levels per conventional perfusion assessment and then administered 5 mg of ICG by 2 mL intravenous bolus. They assessed bowel perfusion using NIR fluorescence imaging and adjusted (or kept) transection lines accordingly. Only conventional methods for bowel perfusion assessment were used in the CBA group. The primary outcome was the difference in the rate of clinically relevant anastomotic leakage (ie, requiring active therapeutic intervention but manageable without reoperation [grade B] or requiring reoperation [grade C], per the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer) between the FGBA group and the CBA group within 90 days post-surgery. The primary outcome and safety were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This study was registered with ToetsingOnline.nl (NL7502) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04712032) and is complete. FINDINGS: Between July 2, 2020, and Feb 21, 2023, 982 patients were enrolled, of whom 490 were assigned to FGBA and 492 were assigned to CBA. After excluding 51 patients, the intention-to-treat population comprised 931 (463 assigned FGBA and 468 assigned CBA). Patients had a median age of 68·0 years (IQR 59·0-75·0) and 485 (52%) were male and 446 (48%) were female. Ethnicity data were not available. The overall 90-day rate of clinically relevant anastomotic leakage was not significantly different between the FGBA group (32 [7%] of 463 patients) and the CBA group (42 [9%] of 468 patients; relative risk 0·77 [95% CI 0·50-1·20]; p=0·24). No adverse events related to ICG use were observed. 313 serious adverse events in 229 (25%) patients were at 90-day follow-up (159 serious adverse events in 113 [24%] patients in the FGBA group and 154 serious adverse events in 116 [25%] patients in the CBA group). 18 (2%) people died by 90 days (ten in the FGBA group and eight in the CBA group). INTERPRETATION: ICG NIR fluorescence imaging did not reduce 90-day anastomotic leakage rates in this trial across all types of colorectal surgeries. Further research should be done in subgroups, such as rectosigmoid resections, for which evidence suggests ICG NIR might be beneficial. FUNDING: Olympus Medical, Diagnostic Green, and Intuitive Foundation.

Unraveling the role of computed tomography derived body composition metrics on anastomotic leakages rates in rectal cancer surgery: A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Anastomotic leakage is a major concern following total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer, affecting oncological outcomes, morbidity an treatment costs. Body composition has been suggested to influence anastomotic leakage rates. However, literature on how body composition impact anastomotic leakage rates is conflicting. This systematic review aims to evaluate the role of computed tomography derived body composition metrics on anastomotic leakage rates in rectal cancer patients. METHODS: Databases PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, web of science, and EMBASE, will be systematically searched for papers from January 2010 onwards. Study selection, data collection and quality assessment will be independently performed by three research fellows. Outcomes described in three or more studies will be included in the meta-analysis. The Q-test and I2 statistic will be used to assess statistical heterogeneity between studies. Publication bias will be examined by visual inspection of funnel plots and quantified by Egger's test. Sensitivity analyses will be conducted to examine the robustness of the meta-analysis. Reporting of the findings will be in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review will synthesize the current evidence and will identify knowledge gaps. Results of the systematic review will aid health care professional in pre-operative decision making and will be distributed through a peer-reviewed publication and presentation of results at international meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO protocol number: CRD42023471537.

Functional outcomes and quality of life following open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The standard surgical treatment for rectal cancer is total mesorectal excision (TME), which may negatively affect patients' functional outcomes and quality of life (QoL). However, it is unclear how different TME techniques may impact patients' functional outcomes and QoL. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated functional outcomes of urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning as well as QoL after open, laparoscopic (L-TME), robot-assisted (R-TME), and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME). METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis, based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis statement, were conducted (PROSPERO: CRD42021240851). A literature review was performed (sources: PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases; end-of-search date: September 1, 2023), and a quality assessment was performed using the Methodological index for non-randomized studies. A random-effects model was used to pool the data for the meta-analyses. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included, reporting on 2495 patients (88 open, 1171 L-TME, 995 R-TME, and 241 TaTME). Quantitative analyses comparing L-TME vs. R-TME showed no significant differences regarding urinary and sexual functioning, except for urinary function at three months post-surgery, which favoured R-TME (SMD [CI] -0 .15 [- 0.24 to - 0.06], p = 0.02; n = 401). Qualitative analyses identified most studies did not find significant differences in urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning and QoL between different techniques. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis highlight a significant gap in the literature concerning the evaluation of functional outcomes and QoL after TME for rectal cancer treatment. This study emphasizes the need for high-quality, randomized-controlled, and prospective cohort studies evaluating these outcomes. Based on the limited available evidence, this systematic review and meta-analysis suggests no significant differences in patients' urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning and their QoL across various TME techniques.

POP-Q Versus Upright MRI Distance Measurements: A Prospective Study in Patients with POP.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The gold standard for quantifying pelvic organ prolapse is the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) system; however, upright magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a promising new method. The objective of this study was to determine the correlation between POP-Q and MRI measurements of the bladder and cervix. METHODS: This prospective study included patients with prolapse in whom POP-Q points Aa or Ba and C were measured as standard care. MRI scans were performed in an upright position, and the distances of the lowest points of the bladder and cervix to the Pelvic Inclination Correction System (PICS) were calculated. Correlations between POP-Q and MRI-PICS measurements were determined using the Pearson correlation coefficient for normally distributed data and the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient for non-normally distributed data. RESULTS: A total of 63 patients were suitable for analysis. There was a moderate positive correlation between the POP-Q and MRI-PICS measurements for bladder (r(61) = 0.480, r < 0.001) and uterus (r(61) = 0.527, p < 0.001). Measurement differences between POP-Q and MRI-PICS of the bladder and uterus vary from -3.2 cm to 7.1 cm, and from -2.1 cm to 8.5 cm respectively. In 71.4% of patients more descent was seen on upright MRI than with POP-Q measurement for both bladder and uterus. For patients with similar POP-Q measurements, a high variation in MRI measurements of the bladder and uterus was found. CONCLUSION: Despite a moderate positive correlation, upright MRI shows a larger POP extent in 71.4% of the patients than POP-Q. A high variation in MRI measurements for patients with the same POP-Q measurement was seen.

Long-term restoration of bowel continuity after rectal cancer resection and the influence of surgical technique: A nationwide cross-sectional study.

AIM: Literature on nationwide long-term permanent stoma rates after rectal cancer resection in the minimally invasive era is scarce. The aim of this population-based study was to provide more insight into the permanent stoma rate with interhospital variability (IHV) depending on surgical technique, with pelvic sepsis, unplanned reinterventions and readmissions as secondary outcomes. METHOD: Patients who underwent open or minimally invasive resection of rectal cancer (lower border below the sigmoid take-off) in 67 Dutch centres in 2016 were included in this cross-sectional cohort study. RESULTS: Among 2530 patients, 1470 underwent a restorative resection (58%), 356 a Hartmann's procedure (14%, IHV 0%-42%) and 704 an abdominoperineal resection (28%, IHV 3%-60%). Median follow-up was 51 months. The overall permanent stoma rate at last follow-up was 50% (IHV 13%-79%) and the unintentional permanent stoma rate, permanent stoma after a restorative procedure or an unplanned Hartmann's procedure, was 11% (IHV 0%-29%). A total of 2165 patients (86%) underwent a minimally invasive resection: 1760 conventional (81%), 170 transanal (8%) and 235 robot-assisted (11%). An anastomosis was created in 59%, 80% and 66%, with corresponding unintentional permanent stoma rates of 12%, 24% and 14% (p = 0.001), respectively. When corrected for age, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, cTNM, distance to the anorectal junction and neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy, the minimally invasive technique was not associated with an unintended permanent stoma (p = 0.071) after a restorative procedure. CONCLUSION: A remarkable IHV in the permanent stoma rate after rectal cancer resection was found. No beneficial influence of transanal or robot-assisted laparoscopy on the unintentional permanent stoma rate was found, although this might be caused by the surgical learning curve. A reduction in IHV and improving preoperative counselling for decision-making for restorative procedures are required.

Total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined low rectal cancer: multicentre study comparing oncological outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic and transanal total mesorectal excision in high-volume centres.

BACKGROUND: The routine use of MRI in rectal cancer treatment allows the use of a strict definition for low rectal cancer. This study aimed to compare minimally invasive total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined low rectal cancer in expert laparoscopic, transanal and robotic high-volume centres. METHODS: All MRI-defined low rectal cancer operated on between 2015 and 2017 in 11 Dutch centres were included. Primary outcomes were: R1 rate, total mesorectal excision quality and 3-year local recurrence and survivals (overall and disease free). Secondary outcomes included conversion rate, complications and whether there was a perioperative change in the preoperative treatment plan. RESULTS: Of 1071 eligible rectal cancers, 633 patients with low rectal cancer were identified. Quality of the total mesorectal excision specimen (P = 0.337), R1 rate (P = 0.107), conversion (P = 0.344), anastomotic leakage rate (P = 0.942), local recurrence (P = 0.809), overall survival (P = 0.436) and disease-free survival (P = 0.347) were comparable among the centres. The laparoscopic centre group had the highest rate of perioperative change in the preoperative treatment plan (10.4%), compared with robotic expert centres (5.2%) and transanal centres (2.1%), P = 0.004. The main reason for this change was stapling difficulty (43%), followed by low tumour location (29%). Multivariable analysis showed that laparoscopic surgery was the only independent risk factor for a change in the preoperative planned procedure, P = 0.024. CONCLUSION: Centres with expertise in all three minimally invasive total mesorectal excision techniques can achieve good oncological resection in the treatment of MRI-defined low rectal cancer. However, compared with robotic expert centres and transanal centres, patients treated in laparoscopic centres have an increased risk of a change in the preoperative intended procedure due to technical limitations.

The prognostic value of a geriatric risk score for older patients undergoing emergency surgery of colorectal cancer: A retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency surgery of colorectal cancer is associated with high mortality rates in older patients. We investigated whether information on four geriatric domains has prognostic value for 30-day mortality and postoperative morbidity including severe complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All consecutive patients aged 70 years or older who underwent emergency colorectal cancer surgery in six Dutch hospitals (2014-2017) were studied. Presence of geriatric risk factors was scored prior to surgery as either 0 (risk absent) or 1 (risk present) in each of four geriatric domains and summed up to calculate a sumscore with a value between 0 and 4. In addition, we separately investigated the use of a mobility aid. Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were any postoperative complications and severe complications. Multivariable logistic regression model was used to evaluate the sumscore and outcomes. RESULTS: Two hundred seven patients were included. Median age was 79.4 years. One hundred seventy-five patients (76%) presented with obstruction, 22 (11%) with a perforation, and 17 (8%) with severe anemia. Mortality rates were 2.9%, 13.6%, and 29.6% for patients with a sumscore of 0, 1-2, and 3-4 respectively, with odds ratio (OR) 4.8 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-22.95] and OR 10.6 [95% CI 1.99-56.34] for a sumscore of 1-2 and 3-4 respectively. Use of a mobility aid was associated with increased mortality OR 8.0 [95% CI 2.74-23.43] and severe complications OR 2.31 [95% CI 1.17-4.55]. DISCUSSION: This geriatric sumscore and the use of a mobility aid have strong association with 30-day mortality after emergency surgery of colorectal cancer. This could provide better insight into surgical risk and help select high-risk patients for alternative strategies.

Better stoma care using the Stoma App: does it help? A first randomized double-blind clinical trial on the effect of mobile healthcare on quality of life in stoma patients.

BACKGROUND: Receiving a stoma significantly impacts patients' quality of life. Coping with this new situation can be difficult, which may result in a variety of physical and psychosocial problems. It is essential to provide adequate guidance to help patients cope with their stoma, as this positively influences self-efficacy in return. Higher self-efficacy reduces psychosocial problems increasing patient's quality of life. This study investigates whether a new mobile application, the Stoma App, improves quality of life. And if personalized guidance, timed support, and peer contact offered as an in-app surplus makes a difference. METHODS: A double-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted between March 2021 and April 2023. Patients aged > 18 years undergoing ileostomy or colostomy surgery, in possession of a compatible smartphone were included. The intervention group received the full version of the app containing personalized and time guidance, peer support, and generic (non-personalized) stoma-related information. The control group received a restricted version with only generic information. Primary outcome was stoma quality of life. Secondary outcomes included psychological adaption, complications, re-admittance, reoperations, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: The intervention version of the app was used by 96 patients and the control version by 112 patients. After correction for confounding, the intervention group reported a significant 3.1-point improvement in stoma-related quality of life one month postoperatively (p = 0.038). On secondary outcomes, no significant improvements could be retrieved of the intervention group. CONCLUSION: The Stoma App improves the quality of life of stoma patients. Peer support and personalized guidance are of significant importance in building self-efficacy. It is to be recommended to implement Stoma app-freely available software qualifying as a medical device-in standard stoma care pathways for the benefits of both patients and healthcare providers.

Two Days Versus Five Days of Postoperative Antibiotics for Complex Appendicitis: Cost Analysis of a Randomized, Noninferiority Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare costs for 2 days versus 5 days of postoperative antibiotics within the antibiotics after an aPPendectomy In Complex appendicitis trial.Background:Recent studies suggest that restrictive antibiotic use leads to a significant reduction in hospital stays without compromising patient safety. Its potential effect on societal costs remains underexplored. METHODS: This was a pragmatic, open-label, multicenter clinical trial powered for noninferiority. Patients with complex appendicitis (age ≥ 8 years) were randomly allocated to 2 days or 5 days of intravenous antibiotics after appendectomy. Patient inclusion lasted from June 2017 to June 2021 in 15 Dutch hospitals. The final follow-up was on September 1, 2021. The primary trial endpoint was a composite endpoint of infectious complications and mortality within 90 days. In the present study, the main outcome measures were overall societal costs (comprising direct health care costs and costs related to productivity loss) and cost-effectiveness. Direct health care costs were recorded based on data in the electronic patient files, complemented by a telephone follow-up at 90 days. In addition, data on loss of productivity were acquired through the validated Productivity Cost Questionnaire at 4 weeks after surgery. Cost estimates were based on prices for the year 2019. RESULTS: In total, 1005 patients were evaluated in the "intention-to-treat" analysis: 502 patients were allocated to the 2-day group and 503 to the 5-day group. The mean difference in overall societal costs was - €625 (95% CI: -€ 958 to -€ 278) to the advantage of the 2-day group. This difference was largely explained by reduced hospital stay. Productivity losses were similar between the study groups. Restricting postoperative antibiotics to 2 days was cost-effective, with estimated cost savings of €31,117 per additional infectious complication. CONCLUSIONS: Two days of postoperative antibiotics for complex appendicitis results in a statistically significant and relevant cost reduction, as compared with 5 days. Findings apply to laparoscopic appendectomy in a well-resourced health care setting.

Timing of restoration of bowel continuity after decompressing stoma, in left-sided obstructive colon cancer: a nationwide retrospective cohort.

BACKGROUND: With the increasing use of decompressing stoma as a bridge to surgery for left-sided obstructive colon cancer (LSOCC), the timing of restoration of bowel continuity (ROBC) is a subject of debate. There is a lack of data on immediate ROBC during elective resection as an alternative for a 3-stage procedure. This study analysed if immediate ROBC during tumour resection is safe and of any benefit for patients who underwent decompressing stoma for LSOCC. METHODS: In a Dutch nationwide collaborative research project, 3153 patients who underwent resection for LSOCC in 75 hospitals (2009-2016) were identified. Extensive data on disease and procedural characteristics, and outcomes was collected by local collaborators. For this analysis, 332 patients who underwent decompressing stoma followed by curative resection were selected. Immediate ROBC during tumour resection was compared to two no immediate ROBC groups, (1) tumour resection with primary anastomosis (PA) with leaving the decompressing stoma in situ, and (2) tumour resection without PA. RESULTS: Immediate ROBC was performed in 113 patients (34.0%) and no immediate ROBC in 219 patients [168 with PA (50.6%) and 51 patients without PA (15.4%)]. No differences at baseline between the groups were found for age, ASA score, cT, and cM. Major surgical complications (8.8% immediate ROBC vs. 4.8% PA with decompressing stoma and 7.8% no PA; P =0.37) and mortality (2.7% vs. 2.4% and 0%, respectively; P =0.52) were similar. Immediate ROBC resulted in a shorter time with a stoma (mean 41 vs. 240 and 314 days, respectively; P <0.001), and fewer permanent stomas (7% vs. 21% and 80%, respectively; P <0.001) as compared to PA with a decompressing stoma or no PA. CONCLUSION: After a decompressing stoma for LSOCC, immediate ROBC during elective resection appears safe, reduces the total time with a stoma and the risk of a permanent stoma.

Completion Total Mesorectal Excision: A Case-Matched Comparison With Primary Resection.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative and oncological results of completion total mesorectal excision (cTME) versus primary total mesorectal excision (pTME). Background: Early-stage rectal cancer can be treated by local excision alone, which is associated with less surgical morbidity and improved functional outcomes compared with radical surgery. When high-risk histological features are present, cTME is indicated, with possible worse clinical and oncological outcomes compared to pTME. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included all patients that underwent TME surgery for rectal cancer performed in 11 centers in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2017. After case-matching, we compared cTME with pTME. The primary outcome was major postoperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes included the rate of restorative procedures and 3-year oncological outcomes. Results: In total 1069 patients were included, of which 35 underwent cTME. After matching (1:2 ratio), 29 cTME and 58 pTME were analyzed. No differences were found for major morbidity (27.6% vs 19.0%; P = 0.28) and abdominoperineal excision rate (31.0% vs 32.8%; P = 0.85) between cTME and pTME, respectively. Local recurrence (3.4% vs 8.6%; P = 0.43), systemic recurrence (3.4% vs 12.1%; P = 0.25), overall survival (93.1% vs 94.8%; P = 0.71), and disease-free survival (89.7% vs 81.0%; P = 0.43) were comparable between cTME and pTME. Conclusions: cTME is not associated with higher major morbidity, whereas the abdominoperineal excision rate and 3-year oncological outcomes are similar compared to pTME. Local excision as a diagnostic tool followed by completion surgery for early rectal cancer does not compromise outcomes and should still be considered as the treatment of early-stage rectal cancer.

Robot-assisted fluorescent sentinel lymph node identification in early-stage colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cT1-2 colon cancer (CC) have a 10-20% risk of lymph node metastases. Sentinel lymph node identification (SLNi) could improve staging and reduce morbidity in future organ-preserving CC surgery. This pilot study aimed to assess safety and feasibility of robot-assisted fluorescence-guided SLNi using submucosally injected indocyanine green (ICG) in patients with cT1-2N0M0 CC. METHODS: Ten consecutive patients with cT1-2N0M0 CC were included in this prospective feasibility study. Intraoperative submucosal, peritumoral injection of ICG was performed during a colonoscopy. Subsequently, the near-infrared fluorescence 'Firefly' mode of the da Vinci Xi robotic surgical system was used for SLNi. SLNs were marked with a suture, after which a segmental colectomy was performed. The SLN was postoperatively ultrastaged using serial slicing and immunohistochemistry, in addition to the standard pathological examination of the specimen. Colonoscopy time, detection time (time from ICG injection to first SLNi), and total SLNi time were measured (time from the start of colonoscopy to start of segmental resection). Intraoperative, postoperative, and pathological outcomes were registered. RESULTS: In all patients, at least one SLN was identified (mean 2.3 SLNs, SLN diameter range 1-13 mm). No tracer-related adverse events were noted. Median colonoscopy time was 12 min, detection time was 6 min, and total SLNi time was 30.5 min. Two patients had lymph node metastases present in the SLN, and there were no patients with false negative SLNs. No patient was upstaged due to ultrastaging of the SLN after an initial negative standard pathological examination. Half of the patients unexpectedly had pT3 tumours. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted fluorescence-guided SLNi using submucosally injected ICG in ten patients with cT1-2N0M0 CC was safe and feasible. SLNi was performed in an acceptable timespan and SLNs down to 1 mm were detected. All lymph node metastases would have been detected if SLN biopsy had been performed.

A Cost Overview of Minimally Invasive Total Mesorectal Excision in Rectal Cancer Patients: A Population-based Cohort in Experienced Centres.

Background: Total mesorectal excision has been the gold standard for the operative management of rectal cancer. The most frequently used minimally invasive techniques for surgical resection of rectal cancer are laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal excision. As studies comparing the costs of the techniques are lacking, this study aims to provide a cost overview. Method: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent total mesorectal resection between 2015 and 2017 at 11 dedicated centers, which completed the learning curve of the specific technique. The primary outcome was total in-hospital costs of each technique up to 30 days after surgery including all major surgical cost drivers, while taking into account different team approaches in the transanal approach. Secondary outcomes were hospitalization and complication rates. Statistical analysis was performed using multivariable linear regression analysis. Results: In total, 949 patients were included, consisting of 446 laparoscopic (47%), 306 (32%) robot-assisted, and 197 (21%) transanal total mesorectal excisions. Total costs were significantly higher for transanal and robot-assisted techniques compared to the laparoscopic technique, with median (interquartile range) for laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal at €10,556 (8,642;13,829), €12,918 (11,196;16,223), and € 13,052 (11,330;16,358), respectively (P < 0.001). Also, the one-team transanal approach showed significant higher operation time and higher costs compared to the two-team approach. Length of stay and postoperative complications did not differ between groups. Conclusion: Transanal and robot-assisted approaches show higher costs during 30-day follow-up compared to laparoscopy with comparable short-term clinical outcomes. Two-team transanal approach is associated with lower total costs compared to the transanal one-team approach.

Economic analysis of open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer patients: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Minimally invasive total mesorectal excision is increasingly being used as an alternative to open surgery in the treatment of patients with rectal cancer. This systematic review aimed to compare the total, operative and hospitalization costs of open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision. METHODS: This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA) (S1 File) A literature review was conducted (end-of-search date: January 1, 2023) and quality assessment performed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria. RESULTS: 12 studies were included, reporting on 2542 patients (226 open, 1192 laparoscopic, 998 robot-assisted and 126 transanal total mesorectal excision). Total costs of minimally invasive total mesorectal excision were higher compared to the open technique in the majority of included studies. For robot-assisted total mesorectal excision, higher operative costs and lower hospitalization costs were reported compared to the open and laparoscopic technique. A meta-analysis could not be performed due to low study quality and a high level of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was caused by differences in the learning curve and statistical methods used. CONCLUSION: Literature regarding costs of total mesorectal excision techniques is limited in quality and number. Available evidence suggests minimally invasive techniques may be more expensive compared to open total mesorectal excision. High-quality economical evaluations, accounting for the learning curve, are needed to properly assess costs of the different techniques.

Personalised electronic health programme for recovery after major abdominal surgery: a multicentre, single-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the adoption of minimally invasive techniques, recovery after abdominal surgery takes a long time. Electronic health (eHealth) modalities can provide guidance to patients, facilitating early return to normal activities. We aimed to assess the impact of a personalised eHealth programme on patients' return to normal activities after major abdominal surgery. METHODS: This single-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial was done at 11 teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Eligible participants were aged 18-75 years who underwent a laparoscopic or open colectomy or hysterectomy. An independent researcher randomly allocated participants (in a 1:1 ratio) to either the intervention or control group by use of computer-based randomisation lists, with stratification by sex, type of surgery, and hospital. Participants in the intervention group had access to a perioperative, personalised eHealth programme consisting of both standard face-to-face care and eHealth, that comprised interactive tools offering goal attainment and a personalised outcome measurement, which managed recovery expectations and provided postoperative guidance tailored to each patient. Patients were provided with an activity tracker and had access to a website and mobile app with an electronic consultation (eConsult) functionality. The control group received standard care and access to a placebo website containing recovery advice provided by the hospital. The primary outcome was the number of days between surgery and personalised return to normal activities, assessed with Kaplan-Meier curves. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were done with a Cox regression model. This trial is registered with the Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR5686). FINDINGS: Between Feb 11, 2016, and Aug 9, 2017, 355 participants were randomly assigned to the intervention (n=178) or control (n=177) groups. 342 participants were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The median time until return to normal activities was 52 days (IQR 33-111) in the intervention group, and 65 days (39-152) in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio 1·30 [95% CI 1·03-1·64]; p=0·027). The frequency of postoperative complications did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: This eHealth programme, delivering personalised care based on goal attainment scaling, enabled patients to return to their normal activities 13 days earlier than those who received standard care. FUNDING: ZonMw.

Nationwide practice in CT-based preoperative staging of colon cancer and concordance with definitive pathology.

INTRODUCTION: In an era of exploring patient-tailored treatment options for colon cancer, preoperative staging is increasingly important. This study aimed to evaluate completeness and reliability of CT-based preoperative locoregional colon cancer staging in Dutch hospitals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent elective oncological resection of colon cancer without neoadjuvant treatment in 77 Dutch hospitals were evaluated between 2011 and 2021. Completeness of T-stage was calculated for individual hospitals and stratified based on a 60% cut-off. Concordance between routine CT-based preoperative locoregional staging (cTN) and definitive pathological staging (pTN) was examined. RESULTS: A total of 59,558 patients were included with an average completeness of 43.4% and 53.4% for T and N-stage, respectively. Completeness of T-stage improved from 4.9% in 2011-2014 to 74.4% in 2019-2021. Median completeness for individual hospitals was 53.9% (IQR 27.3-80.5%) and were not significantly different between low and high-volume hospitals. Sensitivity and specificity for T3-4 tumours were relatively low: 75.1% and 76.0%, respectively. cT1-2 tumours were frequently understaged based on a low negative predictive value of 56.8%. Distinction of cT4 and cN2 disease had a high specificity (>95%), but a very low sensitivity (<50%). Positive predictive values of <60% indicated that cT4 and cN1-2 were often overstaged. Completeness and time period did not influence reliability of staging. CONCLUSION: Completeness of locoregional staging of colon cancer improved during recent years and varied between hospitals independently from case volume. Discriminating cT1-2 from cT3-4 tumours resulted in substantial understaging and overstaging, additionally cT4 and cN1-2 were overstaged in >40% of cases.

Towards Response ADAptive Radiotherapy for organ preservation for intermediate-risk rectal cancer (preRADAR): protocol of a phase I dose-escalation trial.

INTRODUCTION: Organ preservation is associated with superior functional outcome and quality of life (QoL) compared with total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. Only 10% of patients are eligible for organ preservation following short-course radiotherapy (SCRT, 25 Gy in five fractions) and a prolonged interval (4-8 weeks) to response evaluation. The organ preservation rate could potentially be increased by dose-escalated radiotherapy. Online adaptive magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) is anticipated to reduce radiation-induced toxicity and enable radiotherapy dose escalation. This trial aims to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of dose-escalated SCRT using online adaptive MRgRT. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The preRADAR is a multicentre phase I trial with a 6+3 dose-escalation design. Patients with intermediate-risk rectal cancer (cT3c-d(MRF-)N1M0 or cT1-3(MRF-)N1M0) interested in organ preservation are eligible. Patients are treated with a radiotherapy boost of 2×5 Gy (level 0), 3×5 Gy (level 1), 4×5 Gy (level 2) or 5×5 Gy (level 3) on the gross tumour volume in the week following standard SCRT using online adaptive MRgRT. The trial starts on dose level 1. The primary endpoint is the MTD based on the incidence of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) per dose level. DLT is a composite of maximum one in nine severe radiation-induced toxicities and maximum one in three severe postoperative complications, in patients treated with TME or local excision within 26 weeks following start of treatment. Secondary endpoints include the organ preservation rate, non-DLT, oncological outcomes, patient-reported QoL and functional outcomes up to 2 years following start of treatment. Imaging and laboratory biomarkers are explored for early response prediction. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial protocol has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the University Medical Centre Utrecht. The primary and secondary trial results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: WHO International Clinical Trials Registry (NL8997; https://trialsearch.who.int).