Association of Lateral Pelvic Lymph Nodes with Disease Recurrence and Organ Preservation in Patients with Distal Rectal Adenocarcinoma Treated with Total Neoadjuvant Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the significance of enlarged lateral lymph nodes (LLN) for disease recurrence, metastasis, and organ preservation in patients with rectal cancer. BACKGROUND: Optimal treatment of rectal adenocarcinoma involving LLN is subject to debate. METHODS: A post hoc analysis of the OPRA trial, a multicenter study of patients with rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) followed by total mesorectal excision or watch-and-wait management. We analyzed the association of visible LLN (LLN+), LLN≥7 mm (short axis) on baseline MRI, and LLN≥4 mm on restaging MRI with recurrence, metastasis, and rectum preservation. RESULTS: At baseline, 57 out of 324 (18%) patients had LLN+. In 30 (53%) of 57 patients with LLN+ on baseline MRI, the LLN disappeared after TNT. Disease recurrence in LLN was rare (3.5% of patients with LLN+ and 0.4% of patients with LLN-). All patients with recurrence in LLN also had distant metastasis. The rate of organ preservation was significantly lower in patients with LLN≥4 mm on restaging MRI (P=0.013). We found no significant differences in rates of local recurrence or metastasis between patients with LLN+ vs. LLN- and in patients with LLN≥7 vs.<7 mm on baseline MRI. LLN dissection was performed in 3 patients; 2 of them died of distant metastasis. CONCLUSIONS: LLN involvement is not associated with disease recurrence or metastasis, but persistence of LLN≥4 mm after TNT is negatively associated with rectum preservation in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with TNT. Dissection of lateral nodes likely benefits few patients.

Organ Preservation and Survival by Clinical Response Grade in Patients With Rectal Cancer Treated With Total Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Secondary Analysis of the OPRA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Assessing clinical tumor response following completion of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer is paramount to select patients for watch-and-wait treatment. Objective: To assess organ preservation (OP) and oncologic outcomes according to clinical tumor response grade. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was secondary analysis of the Organ Preservation in Patients with Rectal Adenocarcinoma trial, a phase 2, nonblinded, multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Randomization occurred between April 2014 and March 2020. Eligible participants included patients with stage II or III rectal adenocarcinoma. Data analysis occurred from March 2022 to July 2023. Intervention: Patients were randomized to induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation or chemoradiation followed by consolidation chemotherapy. Tumor response was assessed 8 (±4) weeks after TNT by digital rectal examination and endoscopy and categorized by clinical tumor response grade. A 3-tier grading schema that stratifies clinical tumor response into clinical complete response (CCR), near complete response (NCR), and incomplete clinical response (ICR) was devised to maximize patient eligibility for OP. Main Outcomes and Measures: OP and survival rates by clinical tumor response grade were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Results: There were 304 eligible patients, including 125 patients with a CCR (median [IQR] age, 60.6 [50.4-68.0] years; 76 male [60.8%]), 114 with an NCR (median [IQR] age, 57.6 [49.1-67.9] years; 80 male [70.2%]), and 65 with an ICR (median [IQR] age, 55.5 [47.7-64.2] years; 41 male [63.1%]) based on endoscopic imaging. Age, sex, tumor distance from the anal verge, pathological tumor classification, and clinical nodal classification were similar among the clinical tumor response grades. Median (IQR) follow-up for patients with OP was 4.09 (2.99-4.93) years. The 3-year probability of OP was 77% (95% CI, 70%-85%) for patients with a CCR and 40% (95% CI, 32%-51%) for patients with an NCR (P < .001). Clinical tumor response grade was associated with disease-free survival, local recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, most patients with a CCR after TNT achieved OP, with few developing tumor regrowth. Although the probability of tumor regrowth was higher for patients with an NCR compared with patients with a CCR, a significant proportion of patients achieved OP. These findings suggest the 3-tier grading schema can be used to estimate recurrence and survival outcomes in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who receive TNT. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02008656.

Long-Term Results of Organ Preservation in Patients With Rectal Adenocarcinoma Treated With Total Neoadjuvant Therapy: The Randomized Phase II OPRA 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.To assess long-term risk of local tumor regrowth, we report updated organ preservation rate and oncologic outcomes of the OPRA trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02008656). Patients with stage II/III rectal cancer were randomly assigned to receive induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation (INCT-CRT) or chemoradiation followed by consolidation chemotherapy (CRT-CNCT). Patients who achieved a complete or near-complete response after finishing treatment were offered watch-and-wait (WW). Total mesorectal excision (TME) was recommended for those who achieved an incomplete response. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary end point was TME-free survival. In total, 324 patients were randomly assigned (INCT-CRT, n = 158; CRT-CNCT, n = 166). Median follow-up was 5.1 years. The 5-year DFS rates were 71% (95% CI, 64 to 79) and 69% (95% CI, 62 to 77) for INCT-CRT and CRT-CNCT, respectively (P = .68). TME-free survival was 39% (95% CI, 32 to 48) in the INCT-CRT group and 54% (95% CI, 46 to 62) in the CRT-CNCT group (P = .012). Of 81 patients with regrowth, 94% occurred within 2 years and 99% occurred within 3 years. DFS was similar for patients who underwent TME after restaging (64% [95% CI, 53 to 78]) and patients in WW who underwent TME after regrowth (64% [95% CI, 53 to 78]; P = .94). Updated analysis continues to show long-term organ preservation in half of the patients with rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy. In patients who enter WW, most cases of tumor regrowth occur in the first 2 years.

Endoscopic Predictors of Residual Tumor After Total Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Post Hoc Analysis From the Organ Preservation in Rectal Adenocarcinoma Trial.

BACKGROUND: Restaging endoscopy plays a critical role in selecting patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who respond to neoadjuvant therapy for nonoperative management. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the restaging endoscopic features that best predict the presence of residual tumor in the bowel wall. DESIGN: This was a post hoc analysis of a prospective randomized trial. SETTINGS: The Organ Preservation in Rectal Adenocarcinoma Trial randomly assigned patients across 18 institutions with stage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma to receive either induction or consolidation total neoadjuvant therapy. Surgeons completed a restaging tumor assessment form, which stratified patients across 3 tiers of clinical response. PATIENTS: Patients enrolled in the Organ Preservation in Rectal Adenocarcinoma Trial with a completed tumor assessment form were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was residual tumor, which was defined as either an incomplete clinical response or local tumor regrowth within 2 years of restaging. Independent predictors of residual tumor were identified using backward-selected multivariable logistic regression analysis. Subgroup analyses for complete and near complete clinical responders were performed. RESULTS: Surgeons completed restaging forms for 263 patients at a median of 7.7 weeks after neoadjuvant therapy; 128 patients (48.7%) had a residual tumor. On multivariable regression analysis, several characteristics of a near complete response, including ulcer (OR 6.66; 95% CI, 2.54-19.9), irregular mucosa (OR 3.66; 95% CI, 1.61-8.68), and nodularity (OR 2.96; 95% CI, 1.36-6.58), remained independent predictors of residual tumor. A flat scar was associated with lower odds of harboring residual disease (OR 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11-0.93) for patients categorized as clinical complete responders. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include analysis of endoscopic features at a single time point and ambiguities in tumor assessment form response criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ulcer, nodularity, or irregular mucosa, on restaging endoscopy have higher odds of residual tumor. Recognizing negative prognostic implications of these features will help surgeons better select candidates for nonoperative management and suggests that patients with high-risk characteristics would benefit from close interval surveillance. See Video Abstract . PREDICTORES ENDOSCPICOS DE TUMOR RESIDUAL DESPUS DE TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE TOTAL UN ANLISIS POST HOC DEL ENSAYO DE PRESERVACIN DE RGANOS EN ADENOCARCINOMA RECTAL: ANTECEDENTES:La reestadificación por endoscopia juega un papel crítico en la selección de pacientes con cáncer de recto localmente avanzado que responden a la terapia neoadyuvante para el manejo no quirúrgico.OBJETIVO:Este estudio evaluó las características endoscópicas de reestadificación que mejor predicen la presencia de tumor residual en la pared intestinal.DISEÑO:Este fue un análisis post hoc de un ensayo prospectivo aleatorizado.ESCENARIO:El ensayo Organ Preservation in Rectal Adenocarcinoma aleatorizó a pacientes de 18 instituciones con adenocarcinoma de recto en estadio II/III para recibir terapia neoadyuvante total de inducción o consolidación. Los cirujanos completaron un formulario de reestadificación de evaluación del tumor, que estratificó a los pacientes en tres niveles de respuesta clínica.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes inscritos en el ensayo de preservación de órganos en adenocarcinoma rectal con un formulario de evaluación del tumor completado.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado principal fue presencia de tumor residual, que se definió como una respuesta clínica incompleta o un nuevo crecimiento local del tumor dentro de los dos años posteriores a la reestadificación. Los predictores independientes de tumor residual se identificaron mediante un análisis de regresión logística multivariable seleccionado hacia atrás. Se realizaron análisis de subgrupos para pacientes con respuesta clínica completa y casi completa.RESULTADOS:Los cirujanos completaron formularios de reestadificación para 263 pacientes en una mediana de 7.7 semanas después de la terapia neoadyuvante; 128 (48.7%) tenían tumor residual. En el análisis de regresión multivariable, varias características de una respuesta casi completa, incluyendo úlcera (OR 6.66; IC 95% 2.54-19.9), mucosa irregular (OR 3.66; IC 95% 1.61-8.68) y nodularidad (OR 2.96; IC 95% 1.36 -6.58) siguieron siendo predictores independientes de tumor residual. Una cicatriz plana se asoció con menores probabilidades de albergar enfermedad residual (OR 0.32; IC del 95 %: 0.11-0.93) para los pacientes clasificados como respondedores clínicos completos.LIMITACIONES:Las limitaciones de este estudio incluyen el análisis de las características endoscópicas en un solo momento y las ambigüedades en los criterios de respuesta.en la forma de evaluación del tumorCONCLUSIONES:Los pacientes con úlcera, nodularidad o mucosa irregular en la endoscopia de reestadificación tienen mayores probabilidades de tumor residual. El reconocer las implicaciones pronósticas negativas de estas características ayudará a los cirujanos a seleccionar mejor a los candidatos para el tratamiento no quirúrgico y sugiere que los pacientes con características de alto riesgo se beneficiarían de una vigilancia a intervalos estrechos. (Traducción-Dr. Jorge Silva Velazco ).

Nonoperative management of the primary tumor in patients with unresectable stage IV colon cancer treated with systemic chemotherapy: Higher complication rates for left-sided colon tumors.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment of the primary tumor in asymptomatic patients with unresectable colorectal metastases remains controversial. METHODS: Data from patients with synchronous stage IV colon cancer and an untreated primary tumor who started treatment aimed at metastatic disease at a specialized cancer center between 2014 and 2018 were analyzed retrospectively. Main outcome was primary tumor-related complications comparing left-sided and right-sided colon cancer. A competing-risk regression model was used to identify predictors of complications. RESULTS: Of 523 patients with metastatic colon cancer at presentation, 221 started treatment aimed at metastatic disease; these patients constituted the study cohort. The primary tumor was left-sided in 109 patients (49%) and right-sided in 112 patients (51%). In total, 46 patients (21%) developed a complication that required invasive intervention. Complications occurred more frequently in patients with left-sided tumors than in patients with right-sided tumors (29% vs 13%, P = 0.003). Eighteen patients (8%) underwent non-surgical intervention. Six patients (33%) failed non-surgical management and underwent surgery. Of 34 patients (15%) who underwent surgical intervention, 20 underwent an emergency colectomy and 14 underwent diversion with a permanent stoma. Overall, 10% of patients ended up with a permanent stoma. In competing-risk analysis, only left-sided primary tumor (hazard ratio 2.62; 95% CI 1.40-4.89; P = 0.003) was significantly associated with primary tumor-related complications requiring invasive intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with asymptomatic metastatic left-sided tumors have a higher risk for primary tumor-related complications than patients with right-sided tumors. Close monitoring and early surgical rescue should be considered for patients with left-sided colon cancer who are managed nonoperatively.

Compliance and Toxicity of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of the OPRA Trial.

PURPOSE: Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) may achieve organ preservation without a compromise to oncologic outcomes. However, reports on patient compliance with TNT and with treatment-related toxicities are limited. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The OPRA trial assessed organ preservation rates and oncologic outcomes in patients with clinical stage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma randomized to induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation (INCT-CRT) or chemoradiation followed by consolidation chemotherapy (CRT-CNCT). Systemic chemotherapy consisted of 8 cycles (16 weeks) of fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or 5 cycles (15 weeks) of capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPEOX). Patients received >4500 cGy of radiation with sensitizing capecitabine or fluorouracil. In this report, we compare compliance and treatment-related toxicity in patients receiving INCT-CRT versus CRT-CNCT. Additionally, we evaluate the association of compliance to chemotherapy, compliance to chemoradiation, and toxicity with organ preservation and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: Of the 324 patients randomized, fewer patients started chemoradiation in the INCT-CRT group compared with the CRT-CNCT group (93% vs 98%, P = .03), and fewer patients started systemic chemotherapy in the CRT-CNCT group compared with the INCT-CRT group (94% vs 99%, P = .04). Order of TNT did not affect the ability to complete all intended cycles of FOLFOX (86% INCT-CRT vs 83% CRT-CNCT, P = .60) or CAPEOX (74% INCT-CRT vs 77% CRT-CNCT, P = .80). A total of 97% of INCT and 98% of CRT-CNCT patients received >4500 cGy radiation (P = .93). Sixty-four patients (41%) treated with INCT-CRT and 57 CRT-CNCT patients (34%) experienced a grade 3+ adverse event (P = .30). Compliance and toxicity were not associated with organ preservation or DFS. CONCLUSIONS: We identified only minor differences in treatment compliance between patients treated with INCT-CRT and CRT-CNCT. No difference in adverse events was observed between groups. Treatment compliance and toxicity did not correlate with organ preservation rates or DFS.

Combined Hepatic Arterial Infusion Pump and Systemic Chemotherapy in the Modern Era for Chemotherapy-Naive Patients with Unresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-naive patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) have been the best responders to hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) therapy. The current treatment paradigm has drifted away from HAI in the first-line setting. We aimed to analyze outcomes of combined first-line systemic therapy with HAI therapy (HAI+SYS) in the modern era. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of consecutive chemotherapy-naive patients with unresectable CRLM who received HAI+SYS between 2003 and 2019. Patients were selected from a prospectively maintained database. Outcomes included radiological response rate, conversion to resection (CTR) rate, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Fifty-eight chemotherapy-naive patients were identified out of 546 patients with unresectable CRLM managed with HAI. After induction treatment, 4 patients (7%) had a complete radiological response, including two durable responses. In total, 32 patients (55%) underwent CTR. CTR or complete response without resection was achieved after seven cycles of systemic therapy and four cycles of HAI therapy. Median OS for the whole cohort was 53.0 months (95% confidence interval 23.0-82.9). Three- and 5-year OS in patients who achieved CTR or complete response versus patients who did not was 88% and 72% versus 27% and 0% respectively. Of patients who underwent CTR, complete and major pathological response (no and <10% viable tumor cells, respectively) was observed in 7 (22%) and 12 patients (38%). CONCLUSIONS: Combined HAI+SYS in chemotherapy-naive patients resulted in durable and substantial response in a large proportion of patients. Nearly two-thirds of patients achieved a complete response or proceeded to conversion surgery, which was associated with prolonged survival.

Rectal Cancer after Prostate Radiation: A Complex and Controversial Disease.

A small proportion of rectal adenocarcinomas develop in patients many years after the treatment of a previous cancer using pelvic radiation, and the incidence of these rectal cancers depends on the length of follow-up from the end of radiotherapy. The risk of radiation-associated rectal cancer (RARC) is higher in patients treated with prostate external beam radiotherapy than it is in patients treated with brachytherapy. The molecular features of RARC have not been fully investigated, and survival is lower compared to non-irradiated rectal cancer patients. Ultimately, it is unclear whether the worse outcomes are related to differences in patient characteristics, treatment-related factors, or tumor biology. Radiation is widely used in the management of rectal adenocarcinoma; however, pelvic re-irradiation of RARC is challenging and carries a higher risk of treatment complications. Although RARC can develop in patients treated for a variety of malignancies, it is most common in patients treated for prostate cancer. This study will review the incidence, molecular characteristics, clinical course, and treatment outcomes of rectal adenocarcinoma in patients previously treated with radiation for prostate cancer. For clarity, we will distinguish between rectal cancer not associated with prostate cancer (RCNAPC), rectal cancer in non-irradiated prostate cancer patients (RCNRPC), and rectal cancer in irradiated prostate cancer patients (RCRPC). RARC represents a unique but understudied subset of rectal cancer, and thus requires a more comprehensive investigation in order to improve its treatment and prognosis.

Comparison of short-term outcomes and survival between minimally invasive colectomy and open colectomy in patients 80 years of age and older.

We investigated the short- and long-term outcomes of patients 80 years of age and older with colon cancer who underwent robotic colectomy versus laparoscopic colectomy. Data for patients treated at a comprehensive cancer center between January 2006 and November 2018 were collected retrospectively. Outcomes from minimally invasive laparoscopic or robotic colectomy were compared. Survival was analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method with significance evaluated by the log-rank test. The laparoscopic (n = 104) and the robotic (n = 75) colectomy groups did not differ across baseline characteristics. Patients who underwent a robotic colectomy had a shorter median length of hospital stay (5 versus 6 days; p < 0.001) and underwent fewer conversions to open surgery (3% versus 17%; p = 0.002) compared to the laparoscopic cohort. The groups did not differ in postoperative complication rates, overall survival or disease-free survival. Elderly patients undergoing robotic colectomy for colon cancer have a shorter hospital stay and lower rates of conversion without compromise to oncologic outcomes.

Comparison of Robotic, Laparoscopic, and Open Resections of Nonmetastatic Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic resection for colon cancer has not been associated with improvements in oncological outcomes in comparison to open resection. Robotic resections are associated with increased lymph node yield and radicality of mesenteric resection in patients with right-sided tumors. It is unclear whether lymph node yield is higher in robotic resections in other parts of the colon and whether higher lymph node yield is associated with improved survival. OBJECTIVE: To compare survival rates between robotic, laparoscopic, and open resections in a large cohort of patients with nonmetastatic colon cancer. DESIGN: This is a retrospective observational study. SETTING: A single comprehensive cancer center. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent resection of nonmetastatic primary colon cancer between January 2006 and December 2018. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Univariable and multivariable models were used to identify predictors of disease-free and overall survival. Lymph node yield and perioperative outcomes were compared between operative approaches. RESULTS: There were 2398 patients who met the inclusion criteria: 699 (29%) underwent open, 824 (34%) underwent laparoscopic, and 875 (36%) underwent robotic resection. The median follow-up was 3.8 years (45.4 months). Robotic surgery was associated with higher lymph node yield and radicality of mesenteric resection. On multivariable analysis, the surgical approach was not associated with a difference in disease-free or overall survival. Minimally invasive colectomy was associated with fewer complications and shorter length of stay in comparison to open surgery. In a direct comparison between the 2 minimally invasive approaches, robotic colectomy was associated with fewer complications, shorter length of stay, and lower conversion rate than laparoscopy. LIMITATIONS: This was a single-center retrospective study. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that the 3 surgical approaches are similarly effective in treating primary resectable colon cancer and that differences in outcomes are observed primarily in the early postoperative period. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C115 . COMPARACIN DE RESECCIONES ROBTICAS, LAPAROSCPICAS Y ABIERTAS DE CNCER DE COLON NO METASTSICO: ANTECEDENTES:La resección laparoscópica para el cáncer de colon no se ha asociado con mejoras en los resultados oncológicos en comparación con la resección abierta. Las resecciones robóticas se asocian con un mayor rendimiento de los ganglios linfáticos y la radicalidad de la resección mesentérica en pacientes con tumores del lado derecho. No está claro si la cosecha ganglionar es mayor en las resecciones robóticas en otras partes del colon y si un mayor rendimiento de los ganglios linfáticos se asocia con una mejor supervivencia.OBJETIVO:Comparar las tasas de supervivencia entre resecciones robóticas, laparoscópicas y abiertas en una gran cohorte de pacientes con cáncer de colon no metastásico.DISEÑO:Este es un estudio observacional retrospectivo.ESCENARIO:Este estudio se realizó en un único centro oncológico integral.PACIENTES:Pacientes que se sometieron a resección de cáncer de colon primario no metastásico entre enero de 2006 y diciembre de 2018.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se utilizaron modelos univariables y multivariables para identificar predictores de supervivencia libre de enfermedad y global. La cosecha ganglionar y los resultados perioperatorios se compararon entre los abordajes quirúrgicos.RESULTADOS:Hubo 2398 pacientes que cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión: 699 (29%) se sometieron a cirugía abierta, 824 (34%) se sometieron a resección laparoscópica y 875 (36%) se sometieron a resección robótica. La mediana de seguimiento fue de 3,8 años (45,4 meses). La cirugía robótica se asoció con una mayor cosecha ganglionar y la radicalidad de la resección mesentérica. En el análisis multivariable, el abordaje quirúrgico no se asoció con una diferencia en la supervivencia general o libre de enfermedad. La colectomía mínimamente invasiva se asoció con menos complicaciones y una estancia más corta en comparación con la cirugía abierta. En una comparación directa entre los dos enfoques mínimamente invasivos, la colectomía robótica se asoció con menos complicaciones, una estancia más corta y una tasa de conversión más baja que la laparoscopia.LIMITACIONES:Este fue un estudio retrospectivo de un solo centro.CONCLUSIONES:Nuestros datos indican que los tres enfoques quirúrgicos son igualmente efectivos en el tratamiento del cáncer de colon resecable primario y que las diferencias en los resultados se observan principalmente en el período posoperatorio temprano. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C115 . (Traducción-Dr. Felipe Bellolio ).

Intraoperative opioids are associated with decreased recurrence rates in colon adenocarcinoma: a retrospective observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Opioid-induced immunomodulation may be important in colon adenocarcinoma, where tumour DNA mismatch repair (MMR) can determine the level of immune activation with consequences for therapeutic response and prognosis. We evaluated the relationship between intraoperative opioid exposure, MMR subtype, and oncological outcomes after surgery for colon adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Intraoperative opioid use (standardised by calculating morphine milligram equivalents) during stage I-III colon adenocarcinoma resection was reviewed retrospectively. Tumours were classified as DNA mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) or proficient (pMMR) by immunohistochemistry. The primary outcome was local tumour recurrence, distant tumour recurrence, or both (multivariable analysis). The exposures of interest were intraoperative analgesia and tumour subtype. Opioid-related gene expression was analysed using The Cancer Genome Atlas Colon Adenocarcinoma transcriptomic data. RESULTS: Clinical and pathological data were analysed from 1157 subjects (median age, 60 [51-70] yr; 49% female) who underwent curative resection for stage I-III colon adenocarcinoma. Higher intraoperative opioid doses were associated with reduced risk of tumour recurrence (hazard ratio=0.92 per 10 morphine milligram equivalents; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.87-0.98; P=0.007), but not with overall survival. In tumours deficient in DNA MMR, tumour recurrence was less likely (HR=0.38; 95% CI, 0.21-0.68; P=0.001), with higher opioid dose associated with eightfold lower recurrence rates. Gene expression related to opioid signalling was different between dMMR and pMMR tumours. CONCLUSIONS: Higher intraoperative opioid dose was associated with a lower risk of tumour recurrence after surgery for stage I-III colon adenocarcinoma, but particularly so in tumours in which DNA MMR was deficient.

Organ Preservation in Patients With Rectal Adenocarcinoma Treated With Total Neoadjuvant Therapy.

PURPOSE: Prospective data on the efficacy of a watch-and-wait strategy to achieve organ preservation in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy are limited. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized phase II trial, we assessed the outcomes of 324 patients with stage II or III rectal adenocarcinoma treated with induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy (INCT-CRT) or chemoradiotherapy followed by consolidation chemotherapy (CRT-CNCT) and either total mesorectal excision (TME) or watch-and-wait on the basis of tumor response. Patients in both groups received 4 months of infusional fluorouracil-leucovorin-oxaliplatin or capecitabine-oxaliplatin and 5,000 to 5,600 cGy of radiation combined with either continuous infusion fluorouracil or capecitabine during radiotherapy. The trial was designed as two stand-alone studies with disease-free survival (DFS) as the primary end point for both groups, with a comparison to a null hypothesis on the basis of historical data. The secondary end point was TME-free survival. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 3 years. Three-year DFS was 76% (95% CI, 69 to 84) for the INCT-CRT group and 76% (95% CI, 69 to 83) for the CRT-CNCT group, in line with the 3-year DFS rate (75%) observed historically. Three-year TME-free survival was 41% (95% CI, 33 to 50) in the INCT-CRT group and 53% (95% CI, 45 to 62) in the CRT-CNCT group. No differences were found between groups in local recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, or overall survival. Patients who underwent TME after restaging and patients who underwent TME after regrowth had similar DFS rates. CONCLUSION: Organ preservation is achievable in half of the patients with rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy, without an apparent detriment in survival, compared with historical controls treated with chemoradiotherapy, TME, and postoperative chemotherapy.

Timing of Primary Tumor Resection in Synchronous Metastatic Colon Cancer Patients Undergoing Hepatic Arterial Infusion Pump Placement.

INTRODUCTION: Hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) chemotherapy is associated with improved survival in stage IV colon cancer with liver metastases. Whether simultaneous colon resection and HAI pump (HAIP) placement is associated with increased morbidity has not been specifically studied. The purpose of this study was to compare perioperative outcomes of simultaneous colon resection and HAIP placement versus HAIP placement alone. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of consecutive patients with colon cancer and synchronous liver metastases who underwent HAIP placement between 2007 and 2018. Clinicopathologic characteristics, operative data, complications, and time to first cycle of HAIP chemotherapy were compared between patients who underwent colon resection simultaneously with HAIP placement and those who underwent HAIP placement alone. RESULTS: A total of 258 patients underwent simultaneous colectomy and HAIP placement, and 116 patients underwent HAIP placement alone. Grade 1-2 complications were more common in patients who underwent simultaneous colectomy and HAIP placement (36.8% vs. 19.0%, P < 0.001), but grade 3-4 complications were not observed more frequently (14.3% vs. 12.9%, P = 0.872). The median interval between HAIP placement and start of HAIP chemotherapy did not differ between groups (simultaneous colectomy, 27 days [interquartile range (IQR) 17-34]; HAIP placement alone, 30 days [IQR 21-34]; P = 0.924). Infection of the pump causing either delay of initiation of chemotherapy or explantation of the pump occurred in five patients with simultaneous colectomy and in one patient with HAIP placement alone (P = 0.671). CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous HAIP implantation and colectomy is safe in patients with liver metastases of colon carcinoma.

MRI at Restaging After Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Cancer Overestimates Circumferential Resection Margin Proximity as Determined by Comparison With Whole-Mount Pathology.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend restaging with MRI after neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer, but the accuracy of restaging MRI in estimating circumferential margin involvement requires additional clarification. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to measure the accuracy of circumferential resection margin assessment by MRI after neoadjuvant therapy and identify characteristics associated with accuracy. DESIGN: MRI data were retrospectively analyzed for concordance with the findings of whole-mount pathology analysis of the corresponding surgical specimens. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify characteristics associated with accuracy. SETTING: This study was conducted at a comprehensive cancer center. PATIENTS: Included in the study were consecutive patients who underwent total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer between January 2018 and March 2020 after receiving neoadjuvant therapy and undergoing restaging with MRI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of this study included accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for categorizing the circumferential resection margin as threatened; mean and paired mean differences were in proximity of the margin. RESULTS: Of the 94 patients included in the analysis, 39 (41%) had a threatened circumferential resection margin according to MRI at restaging, but only 17 (18%) had a threatened margin based on pathology. The accuracy of MRI in identifying a threatened margin was 63.8%, with margin proximity overestimated by 0.4 cm on average. In multivariate logistic regression, anterior location of the margin and tumor proximity to the anal verge were independently associated with reduced MRI accuracy. LIMITATIONS: A limitation was the retrospective design at a single institution. CONCLUSIONS: The knowledge that MRI-based restaging after neoadjuvant therapy overestimates circumferential margin proximity may render some surgical radicality unnecessary and thereby help avoid the associated morbidity. With the recognition that MRI-based assessment of margin proximity may not be reliable for anterior margin and for distal tumors, radiologists may want to use greater caution in interpreting images of tumors with these characteristics and to acknowledge the uncertainty in their reports. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B814. LA IRM EN LA REESTADIFICACIN LUEGO DE TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE EN EL CNCER DE RECTO SOBRESTIMA LA PROXIMIDAD DEL MARGEN DE RESECCIN CIRCUNFERENCIAL SEGN LO DETERMINADO COMPARATIVAMENTE CON LA PIEZA DE ANATOMOPATOLOGA: ANTECEDENTES:Las pautas actuales recomiendan la re-estadificación por medio de la resonancia magnética luego de terapia neoadyuvante en los casos de cáncer de recto, pero la precisión de la reevaluación con la IRM para estimar el grado de implicación del margen circunferencial requiere aclaraciones adicionales.OBJETIVO:Medir el grado de exactitud en la evaluación del margen de resección circunferencial mediante resonancia magnética después de la terapia neoadyuvante e identificar las características asociadas con la precisión.DISEÑO:Se analizaron retrospectivamente los datos de resonancia magnética para determinar la concordancia entre los hallazgos del análisis de la pieza de anatamopatología y las muestras quirúrgicas correspondientes. Se realizó el análisis de regresión logística univariada y multivariada para identificar las características asociadas con la exactitud.AJUSTE:Centro oncológico integral.PACIENTES:Todos aquellos que se sometieron consecutivamente a una excisión total del mesorrecto por cáncer rectal entre Enero 2018 y Febrero 2020 luego de recibir terapia neoadyuvante y someterse a una re-estadificación por imágenes de resonancia magnética (IRM).PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:La exactitud, la sensibilidad y especificidad; los valores predictivos positivos y negativos para categorizar el margen de resección circunferencial como amenazado; la diferencia media y las medias pareadas de proximidad a los margenes.RESULTADOS:De los 94 pacientes incluidos en el análisis, 39 (41%) tenían un margen de resección circunferencial amenazado según la resonancia magnética en la re-estadificación, pero solo 17 (18%) tenían un margen amenazado basado en la patología. La precisión de la resonancia magnética para identificar un margen amenazado fue del 63,8%, con la proximidad del margen sobreestimada en 0,4 cm en promedio. En la regresión logística multivariada, la ubicación anterior de los bordes de resección y la proximidad del tumor al margen anal se asociaron de forma independiente con la reducción en la precisión de la resonancia magnética.LIMITACIONES:Diseño retrospectivo en una institución única.CONCLUSIONES:El saber que la re-estadificación basada en la IRM, luego de terapia neoadyuvante sobreestima la proximidad de la lesión a los márgenes circunferenciales, hace innecesaria cierta radicalidad quirúrgica complementaria, lo que ayuda a evitar morbilidad asociada. Reconociendo que la evaluación de proximidad de los márgenes de resección basada en la resonancia magnética, no puede ser confiable en casos de márgenes anteriores y en casos de tumores distales. Los radiólogos recomiendan tener más precaución en la interpretación de imágenes de tumores con estas características y reconocen cierto desasosiego en sus informes. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B814.