Is Delaying a Coloanal Anastomosis the Ideal Solution for Rectal Surgery?: Analysis of a Multicentric Cohort of 564 Patients From the GRECCAR.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the specific results of delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) in light of its 2 main indications. BACKGROUND: DCAA can be proposed either immediately after a low anterior resection (primary DCAA) or after the failure of a primary pelvic surgery as a salvage procedure (salvage DCAA). METHODS: All patients who underwent DCAA intervention at 30 GRECCAR-affiliated hospitals between 2010 and 2021 were retrospectively included. RESULTS: Five hundred sixty-four patients (male: 63%; median age: 62 years; interquartile range: 53-69) underwent a DCAA: 66% for primary DCAA and 34% for salvage DCAA. Overall morbidity, major morbidity, and mortality were 57%, 30%, and 1.1%, respectively, without any significant differences between primary DCAA and salvage DCAA ( P = 0.933; P = 0.238, and P = 0.410, respectively). Anastomotic leakage was more frequent after salvage DCAA (23%) than after primary DCAA (15%), ( P = 0.016).Fifty-five patients (10%) developed necrosis of the intra-abdominal colon. In multivariate analysis, intra-abdominal colon necrosis was significantly associated with male sex [odds ratio (OR) = 2.67 95% CI: 1.22-6.49; P = 0.020], body mass index >25 (OR = 2.78 95% CI: 1.37-6.00; P = 0.006), and peripheral artery disease (OR = 4.68 95% CI: 1.12-19.1; P = 0.030). The occurrence of this complication was similar between primary DCAA (11%) and salvage DCAA (8%), ( P = 0.289).Preservation of bowel continuity was reached 3 years after DCAA in 74% of the cohort (primary DCAA: 77% vs salvage DCAA: 68%, P = 0.031). Among patients with a DCAA mannered without diverting stoma, 75% (301/403) have never required a stoma at the last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: DCAA makes it possible to definitively avoid a stoma in 75% of patients when mannered initially without a stoma and to save bowel continuity in 68% of the patients in the setting of failure of primary pelvic surgery.

The Angers CT Score is a Risk Factor for the Failure of the Conservative Management of Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction: A Prospective Observational Multicentric Study.

BACKGROUND: Identifying the 30% of adhesive small bowel obstructions (aSBO) for which conservative management will require surgery is essential. The association between the previously described radiological score and failure of the conservative management of aSBO remains to be confirmed in a large prospective multicentric cohort. Our aim was to assess the risk factors of failure of the conservative management of aSBO considering the radiological score. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This prospective observational study took place in 15 French centers over 3 months. Consecutive patients experiencing aSBO with no early surgery were included. The six radiological features from the Angers radiological computed tomography (CT) score were noted (beak sign, closed loop, focal or diffuse intraperitoneal liquid, focal or diffuse mesenteric haziness, focal or diffuse mesenteric liquid, and diameter of the most dilated small bowel loop > 40 mm). RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy nine patients with aSBO were screened. Sixty patients (21.5%) underwent early surgery, and 219 (78.5%) had primary conservative management. In the end, 218 patients were included in the analysis of the risk factors for conservative treatment failure. Among them, 162 (74.3%) had had successful management while for 56 (25.7%) management had failed. In multivariate analysis, a history of surgery was not a significant risk factor for the failure of conservative treatment (OR = 0.11; 95%CI = 0-1.23). A previous episode of aSBO was protective against the failure of conservative treatment (OR = 0.36; 95%CI = 0.15-0.85) and an Angers CT score ≥ 5 as the only individual risk factor (OR = 2.39; 95%CI = 1.01-5.69). CONCLUSION: The radiological score of aSBO is a promising tool in improving the management of aSBO patients. A first episode of aSBO and/or a radiological score ≥5 should lead physicians to consider early surgical management.

Hybrid Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative complications, especially pulmonary complications, affect more than half the patients who undergo open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Whether hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy results in lower morbidity than open esophagectomy is unclear. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial involving patients 18 to 75 years of age with resectable cancer of the middle or lower third of the esophagus. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo transthoracic open esophagectomy (open procedure) or hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (hybrid procedure). Surgical quality assurance was implemented by the credentialing of surgeons, standardization of technique, and monitoring of performance. Hybrid surgery comprised a two-field abdominal-thoracic operation (also called an Ivor-Lewis procedure) with laparoscopic gastric mobilization and open right thoracotomy. The primary end point was intraoperative or postoperative complication of grade II or higher according to the Clavien-Dindo classification (indicating major complication leading to intervention) within 30 days. Analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: From October 2009 through April 2012, we randomly assigned 103 patients to the hybrid-procedure group and 104 to the open-procedure group. A total of 312 serious adverse events were recorded in 110 patients. A total of 37 patients (36%) in the hybrid-procedure group had a major intraoperative or postoperative complication, as compared with 67 (64%) in the open-procedure group (odds ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18 to 0.55; P<0.001). A total of 18 of 102 patients (18%) in the hybrid-procedure group had a major pulmonary complication, as compared with 31 of 103 (30%) in the open-procedure group. At 3 years, overall survival was 67% (95% CI, 57 to 75) in the hybrid-procedure group, as compared with 55% (95% CI, 45 to 64) in the open-procedure group; disease-free survival was 57% (95% CI, 47 to 66) and 48% (95% CI, 38 to 57), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We found that hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy resulted in a lower incidence of intraoperative and postoperative major complications, specifically pulmonary complications, than open esophagectomy, without compromising overall and disease-free survival over a period of 3 years. (Funded by the French National Cancer Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00937456 .).

Peritoneal Metastases of Colorectal Origin Treated with Complete Cytoreduction and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy: The Efficiency of Mitomycin C.

BACKGROUND: Survival of patients affected by colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases (CRC-PM) can be improved with combined complete cytoreductive surgery (CCRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). Two chemotherapeutic agents are mainly used: mitomycin C (MMC) and oxaliplatin. A recent prospective randomized clinical trial showed that oxaliplatin-based HIPEC does not improve survival compared with CCRS alone. The purpose of our study was to compare the survival effectiveness of MMC versus oxaliplatin-based HIPEC using a homogeneous surgical technique and drug protocol. METHODS: This retrospective monocentric study included all patients prospectively registered for having undergone CCRS and HIPEC using MMC or oxaliplatin for CRC-PM in Strasbourg University Hospital, France, from December 2004 until December 2019. MMC-based HIPEC and oxaliplatin-based HIPEC groups were compared with an inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: A total of 137 patients were included. Groups were comparable for all baseline characteristics except for peritoneal carcinomatosis index. In the weighted multivariate analysis, disease-free survival (DFS) and peritoneal disease-free survival (PDFS) were significantly higher in the MMC-based HIPEC group compared with the oxaliplatin-based HIPEC group with a hazard ratio of 0.74 (CI 95% 0.56-0.98), p = 0.035 and 0.59 (CI 95% 0.40-0.98), p = 0.0084, respectively. There was no difference in overall survival or postoperative morbidity between groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results favor a superiority of MMC for DFS and PDFS in comparison with oxaliplatin in HIPEC after CCRS in treatment with curative intent for CRC-PM.

What Is the Optimal Elective Colectomy for Splenic Flexure Cancer: End of the Debate? A Multicenter Study From the GRECCAR Group With a Propensity Score Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal elective colectomy in patients with splenic flexure tumor is debated. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare splenic flexure colectomy, left hemicolectomy, and subtotal colectomy for perioperative, histological, and survival outcomes in this setting. DESIGN: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic splenic flexure tumor who underwent elective colectomy were included. PATIENTS: Between 2006 and 2014, 313 consecutive patients were operated on in 15 French Research Group of Rectal Cancer Surgery centers. INTERVENTIONS: Propensity score weighting was performed to compare short- and long-term outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was disease-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, quality of surgical resection, overall postoperative morbidity, surgical postoperative morbidity, and rate of anastomotic leakage. RESULTS: The most performed surgery was splenic flexure colectomy (59%), followed by subtotal colectomy (23%) and left hemicolectomy (18%). Subtotal colectomy was more often performed by laparotomy compared with splenic flexure colectomy and left hemicolectomy (93% vs 61% vs 56%, p < 0.0001), and was associated with a longer operative time (260 minutes (120-460) vs 180 minutes (68-440) vs 217 minutes (149-480), p < 0.0001). Postoperative morbidity was similar between the 3 groups, but the median length of hospital stay was significantly longer after subtotal colectomy (13 days (5-56) vs 10 (4-175) vs 9 (4-55), p = 0.0007). The median number of harvested lymph nodes was significantly higher after subtotal colectomy compared with splenic flexure colectomy and left hemicolectomy (24 (8-90) vs 15 (1-81) vs 16 (3-52), p < 0.0001). The rate of stage III disease and the number of patients treated by adjuvant chemotherapy were similar between the 3 groups. There was no difference in terms of disease-free survival and overall survival between the 3 procedures. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: In the elective setting, splenic flexure colectomy is safe and oncologically adequate for patients with nonmetastatic splenic flexure tumor. However, given the oncological clearance after splenic flexure colectomy, it seems that the debate is not completely closed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B703. CUL ES LA COLECTOMA ELECTIVA PTIMA PARA EL CNCER DE NGULO ESPLNICO FIN DEL DEBATE UN ESTUDIO MULTICNTRICO DEL GRUPO GRECCAR CON UN ANLISIS DE PUNTAJE DE PROPENSIN: ANTECEDENTES:La colectomía electiva óptima en pacientes con tumores del ángulo esplénico continua en debate.OBJETIVO:Comparar la colectomía de ángulo esplénico, hemicolectomía izquierda y colectomía subtotal para los resultados perioperatorios, histológicos y de supervivencia en este escenario.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo multicéntrico.ESCENARIO:Se incluyeron pacientes diagnosticados de tumores del ángulo esplénico no metastásicos que se sometieron a colectomía electiva.PACIENTES:Entre 2006 y 2014, 313 pacientes consecutivos fueron intervenidos en 15 centros GRECCAR.INTERVENCIONES:Se realizó una ponderación del puntaje de propensión para comparar los resultados a corto y largo plazo.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El criterio de valoración principal fue la supervivencia libre de enfermedad. Los criterios de valoración secundarios incluyeron la supervivencia general, la calidad de la resección quirúrgica, la morbilidad posoperatoria general, la morbilidad posoperatoria quirúrgica y la tasa de fuga anastomótica.RESULTADOS:La cirugía más realizada fue la colectomía del ángulo esplénico (59%), seguida de la colectomía subtotal (23%) y la hemicolectomía izquierda (18%). La colectomía subtotal se realizó con mayor frecuencia mediante laparotomía en comparación con la colectomía de ángulo esplénico y la hemicolectomía izquierda (93% frente a 61% frente a 56%, p <0.0001), y se asoció con un tiempo quirúrgico más prolongado (260 min [120-460] frente a 180 min [68-440] frente a 217 min [149-480], p <0.0001). La morbilidad posoperatoria fue similar entre los tres grupos, pero la duración media de la estancia hospitalaria fue significativamente más prolongada después de la colectomía subtotal (13 días [5-56] frente a 10 [4-175] frente a 9 [4-55], p = 0.0007). La mediana del número de ganglios linfáticos extraídos fue significativamente mayor después de la colectomía subtotal en comparación con la colectomía del ángulo esplénico y la hemicolectomía izquierda (24 [8-90] frente a 15 [1-81] frente a 16 [3-52], p <0.0001). La tasa de enfermedad en estadio III y el número de pacientes tratados con quimioterapia adyuvante fueron similares entre los 3 grupos. No hubo diferencias en términos de supervivencia libre de enfermedad y supervivencia general entre los 3 procedimientos.LIMITACIONES:El estudio estuvo limitado por su diseño retrospectivo.CONCLUSIONES:En un escenario electivo, la colectomía del ángulo esplénico es segura y oncológicamente adecuada para pacientes con tumores del ángulo esplénico no metastásicos. Sin embargo, dado el aclaramiento oncológico tras la colectomía del ángulo esplénico, parece que el debate no está completamente cerrado. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B703.

Half of Postoperative Deaths After Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy Could be Preventable: A French Root Cause Analysis on 5562 Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a retrospective root-cause analysis of postoperative death after CRS and HIPEC procedures. BACKGROUND: The combination of CRS and HIPEC is an effective therapeutic strategy to treat peritoneal surface malignancies, however it is associated with significant postoperative mortality. METHODS: All patients treated with a combination of CRS and HIPEC between January 2009 and December 2018 in 22 French centers and died in the hospital, were retrospectively analyzed. Perioperative data of the 101 patients were collected by a local senior surgeon with a sole junior surgeon. Three independent experts investigated the typical root cause of death and provided conclusions on whether postoperative death was preventable (PREV group) or not (NON-PREV group). A typical root cause of preventable postoperative death was classified on a cause-and-effect diagram. RESULTS: Of the 5562 CRS+HIPEC procedures performed, 101 in-hospital deaths (1.8%) were identified, of which a total of 18 patients of 70 years old and above and 20 patients with ASA score of 3. Etiology of peritoneal disease was mainly colorectal. A total of 54 patients (53%) were classified in the PREV group and 47 patients (47%) in the NON-PREV group. The results of the study show that in the PREV group, WHO performance status 1-2 was more frequent and the Median Peritoneal Cancer Index was higher compared with those of the NON-PREV group. The cause of death in the PREV group was classified as: (i) preoperatively for debatable indication (59%), (ii) intraoperatively (30%) and (iii) postoperatively in 17 patients (31%). A multifactorial cause of death was found in 11 patients (20%). CONCLUSION: More than half of the postoperative deaths after combined CRS and HIPEC may be preventable, mainly by following guidelines regarding preoperative selection of the patients and adequate intraoperative decisions.

Limited Resection Versus Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Duodenal Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors? Enucleation Interferes in the Debate: A European Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal surgical procedure for duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (D-GISTs) remains poorly defined. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) allows for a wide resection but is associated with a high morbidity rate. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of PD versus limited resection (LR) for D-GISTs and to evaluate the role of tumor enucleation (EN). METHODS: In this retrospective European multicenter cohort study, 100 patients who underwent resection for D-GIST between 2001 and 2013 were compared between PD (n = 19) and LR (n = 81). LR included segmental duodenectomy (n = 47), wedge resection (n = 21), or EN (n = 13). The primary objective was to evaluate disease-free survival (DFS) between the groups, while the secondary objectives were to analyze the overall morbidity and mortality, radicality of resection, and 5-year overall survival (OS) and recurrence rates between groups. Furthermore, the short- and long-term outcomes of EN were evaluated. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between the PD and LR groups, except for a more frequent D2 tumor location in the PD group (68.3% vs. 29.6%; p = 0.016). Postoperative morbidity was higher after PD (68.4% vs. 23.5%; p < 0.001). OS (p = 0.70) and DFS (p = 0.64) were comparable after adjustment for D2 location and adjuvant therapy rate. EN was performed more in American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) stage III/IV patients with tumors < 5 cm and was associated with a 5-year OS rate of 84.6%, without any disease recurrences. CONCLUSIONS: For D-GISTs, LR should be the procedure of choice due to lower morbidity and similar oncological outcomes compared with PD. In selected patients, EN appears to be associated with equivalent short- and long-term outcomes. Based on these results, a surgical treatment algorithm is proposed.

How to Prevent Sarcopenia Occurrence during Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Oesogastric Adenocarcinoma?

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a preoperative feeding jejunostomy (FJ) on the occurrence of sarcopenia before and after preoperative chemotherapy for patients with an oesogastric adenocarcinoma (OGA). Forty-six patients with potentially resectable OGA were enrolled in a perioperative chemotherapy protocol. Sarcopenia was evaluated by measuring muscle surfaces (psoas, paraspinal and abdominal wall muscles) on abdominal CT images at the level of the 3rd lumbar vertebra. A FJ was placed in 31 patients (67.4%) before the neoadjuvant treatment (FJ group), while 15 patients (32.6%) started neoadjuvant treatments without FJ (control group). After preoperative chemotherapy, there were significantly more sarcopenic patients in the control group, compared to the FJ group. In the FJ group, 13% of the patients (n = 4) were sarcopenic before treatment and 22.6% of them (n = 7) became sarcopenic after preoperative chemotherapy (p = 0.3). In the control group, if initially only 6.7% (n = 1) of patients were sarcopenic, the majority of the patients (60%, n = 9) became sarcopenic after chemotherapy (p = 0.012). The FJ was an independent risk factor of sarcopenia after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. FJ with enteral nutritional support during the preoperative management of OGA seemed to efficiently counteract sarcopenia occurrence during preoperative chemotherapy.

Second-look surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus surveillance in patients at high risk of developing colorectal peritoneal metastases (PROPHYLOCHIP-PRODIGE 15): a randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis and treatment of colorectal peritoneal metastases at an early stage, before the onset of signs, could improve patient survival. We aimed to compare the survival benefit of systematic second-look surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), with surveillance, in patients at high risk of developing colorectal peritoneal metastases. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study in 23 hospitals in France. Eligible patients were aged 18-70 years and had a primary colorectal cancer with synchronous and localised colorectal peritoneal metastases removed during tumour resection, resected ovarian metastases, or a perforated tumour. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to surveillance or second-look surgery plus oxaliplatin-HIPEC (oxaliplatin 460 mg/m2, or oxaliplatin 300 mg/m2 plus irinotecan 200 mg/m2, plus intravenous fluorouracil 400 mg/m2), or mitomycin-HIPEC (mitomycin 35 mg/m2) alone in case of neuropathy, after 6 months of adjuvant systemic chemotherapy with no signs of disease recurrence. Randomisation was done via a web-based system, with stratification by treatment centre, nodal status, and risk factors for colorectal peritoneal metastases. Second-look surgery consisted of a complete exploration of the abdominal cavity via xyphopubic incision, and resection of all peritoneal implants if resectable. Surveillance after resection of colorectal cancer was done according to the French Guidelines. The primary outcome was 3-year disease-free survival, defined as the time from randomisation to peritoneal or distant disease recurrence, or death from any cause, whichever occurred first, analysed by intention to treat. Surgical complications were assessed in the second-look surgery group only. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01226394. FINDINGS: Between June 11, 2010, and March 31, 2015, 150 patients were recruited and randomly assigned to a treatment group (75 per group). After a median follow-up of 50·8 months (IQR 47·0-54·8), 3-year disease-free survival was 53% (95% CI 41-64) in the surveillance group versus 44% (33-56) in the second-look surgery group (hazard ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·61-1·56). No treatment-related deaths were reported. 29 (41%) of 71 patients in the second-look surgery group had grade 3-4 complications. The most common grade 3-4 complications were intra-abdominal adverse events (haemorrhage, digestive leakage) in 12 (23%) of 71 patients and haematological adverse events in 13 (18%) of 71 patients. INTERPRETATION: Systematic second-look surgery plus oxaliplatin-HIPEC did not improve disease-free survival compared with standard surveillance. Currently, essential surveillance of patients at high risk of developing colorectal peritoneal metastases appears to be adequate and effective in terms of survival outcomes. FUNDING: French National Cancer Institute.

Health-related Quality of Life Following Hybrid Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy for Patients With Esophageal Cancer, Analysis of a Multicenter, Open-label, Randomized Phase III Controlled Trial: The MIRO Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) has been shown to reduce major postoperative complications compared with open esophagectomy (OE) for esophageal cancer. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare short- and long-term health-related quality of life (HRQOL) following HMIE and OE within a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial at 13 study centers between 2009 and 2012. Patients aged 18 to 75 years with resectable cancers of the middle or lower third of the esophagus were randomized to undergo either transthoracic OE or HMIE. Patients were followed-up every 6 months for 3 years postoperatively and global health assessed with EORTC-QLQC30 and esophageal symptoms assessed with EORTC-OES18. RESULTS: The short-term reduction in global HRQOL at 30 days specifically role functioning [-33.33 (HMIE) vs -46.3 (OE); P = 0.0407] and social functioning [-16.88 (HMIE) vs -35.74 (OE); P = 0.0003] was less substantial in the HMIE group. At 2 years, social functioning had improved following HMIE to beyond baseline (+5.37) but remained reduced in the OE group (-8.33) (P = 0.0303). At 2 years, increases in pain were similarly reduced in the HMIE compared with the OE group [+6.94 (HMIE) vs +14.05 (OE); P = 0.018]. Postoperative complications in multivariate analysis were associated with role functioning, pain, and dysphagia. CONCLUSIONS: Esophagectomy has substantial effects upon short-term HRQOL. These effects for some specific parameters are, however, reduced with HMIE, with persistent differences up to 2 years, and maybe mediated by a reduction in postoperative complications.

Is nonanatomic rectal resection a valid therapeutic option for rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors? A proposed decision algorithm.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The best surgical approach to rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) is still debated, and both nonanatomic rectal resection (NARR) and anatomic rectal resection (ARR) are applied. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and oncological outcomes of NARR and ARR for rectal GISTs (R-GISTs). METHODS: Through a large French multicentre retrospective study, 35 patients were treated for R-GIST between 2001 and 2013. Patients who underwent NARR and ARR were compared. RESULTS: There were 23 (65.7%) patients in group ARR and 12 (34.3%) in group NARR. Significantly more patients in the group with ARR had a neoadjuvant treatment (86%) with tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) (imatinib) compared to those with NARR (25%) (p < .01). The median preoperative tumor size was significantly different between the groups without and with neoadjuvant TKI: 30 ± 23 mm versus 64 ± 44.4 mm, respectively (p < .001). Overall postoperative morbidity was 20% (n = 7) (26% for ARR vs. 8% for NARR; p = .4). After a median follow-up of 60.2 (3.2-164.3) months, the 5-year disease-free survival rates were 79.5% (confidence interval [CI] 95%: 54-100) for the NARR group and 68% (CI 95%: 46.4-89.7) for the ARR group (p = .697), respectively. CONCLUSION: The use of NARR for small R-GIST's does not seem to impair the oncological prognosis.

Multicystic and diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma in children.

BACKGROUND: Malignant and multicystic peritoneal mesotheliomas are extremely rare tumors in children, developing from mesothelial cells. No specific guidelines are available at this age. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of all identified children (< 18-year-old) treated in France from 1987 to 2017 for a diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (DMPM) or a multicystic peritoneal mesothelioma (MCPM). RESULTS: Fourteen patients (5 males and nine females), aged 2.2 to 17.5 years, were included. The most frequent presenting symptoms were abdominal pain, ascitis, and alteration in the general condition. Eight patients had epithelioid mesothelioma, three had biphasic mesothelioma, and three had MCPM. Eight patients with DMPM diagnosis received cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). Among them, six patients had neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy, one patient, post-operative chemotherapy, and one patient CRS and HIPEC only. Three patients received only systemic chemotherapy. All patients with MCPM had only surgery. After a median follow-up of seven years (2-15), six patients (6/11; one death) with DMPM and two patients (two/three) with MCPM had a local and distant recurrences. CONCLUSION: Peritoneal mesothelioma in children is a rare condition with difficult diagnosis and high risk of recurrence. Worldwide interdisciplinary collaboration and networking are mandatory to help diagnosis and provide harmonious treatment guidelines.

Iterative cytoreductive surgery with or without hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for colorectal peritoneal metastases: A multi-institutional experience.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aims of this multi-institutional study were to assess the feasibility of iterative cytoreductive surgery (iCRS)/hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, iCRS in colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis (CRPC), evaluate survival, recurrence, morbidity and mortality outcomes, and identify prognostic factors for overall survival. METHODS: Patients with CRPC that underwent an iCRS, with or without intraperitoneal chemotherapy, from June 1993 to July 2016 at 13 institutions were retrospectively analyzed from prospectively maintained databases. RESULTS: The study comprised of 231 patients, including 126 females (54.5%) with a mean age at iCRS of 51.3 years. The iterative high-grade (3/4) morbidity and mortality rates were 23.4% and 1.7%, respectively. The median recurrence-free survival was 15.0 and 10.1 months after initial and iCRS, respectively. The median and 5-year survivals were 49.1 months and 43% and 26.4 months and 26% from the initial and iCRS, respectively. Independent negative predictors of survival from the initial CRS included peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) > 20 ( P = 0.02) and lymph node positivity ( P = 0.04), and from iCRS, PCI > 10 ( P = 0.03 for PCI 11-20; P < 0.001 for PCI > 20), high-grade complications ( P = 0.012), and incomplete cytoreduction ( P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: iCRS can provide long-term survival benefits to highly selected colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis patients with comparable mortality and morbidity rates to the initial CRS procedure. Careful patient selection is necessary to improve overall outcomes.

Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal perfusion with chemotherapy in children with peritoneal tumor spread: A French nationwide study over 14 years.

BACKGROUND: Efficacy and role of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic peritoneal perfusion with chemotherapy (HIPEC) remain poorly documented in pediatric tumors. METHODS: This retrospective national study analyzed all pediatric patients with peritoneal tumor spread treated by CRS and HIPEC as part of a multimodal therapy in France from 2001 to 2015. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients (nine males and 13 females) were selected. The median age at diagnosis was 14.8 years (4.2-17.6). Seven had peritoneal mesotheliomas; seven, desmoplastic small round cells tumors (DSRCT); and eight, other histologic types. A complete macroscopic resection (CC-0, where CC is completeness of cytoreduction) was achieved in 16 (73%) cases. Incomplete resections were classified as CC-1 in four (18%) cases and CC-2 in two (9%) cases. Fourteen (64%) patients had complications within 30 days from HIPEC, requiring an urgent laparotomy in eight (36%) cases. Thirteen (59%) patients received adjuvant chemotherapy and four (18%) received total abdominal radiotherapy after surgery. Sixteen (72%) patients had relapse after a median time of 9.6 months (1.4-86.4) and nine (41%) eventually died after a median time of 5.3 months (0.1-36.1) from relapse. Six (27%) patients (four mesotheliomas, one pseudopapillary pancreatic tumor, and one DSRCT) were alive and in complete remission after a median follow-up of 25.0 months (5.3-78.2). The mean overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were 57.5 months (95% CI [38.59-76.32]) and 30.9 months (95% CI [14.96-46.77]). Patients with a peritoneal mesothelioma had a significantly better OS (p = 0.015) and DFS (p = 0.028) than other histologic type. CONCLUSIONS: In this national series, outcomes of HIPEC are encouraging for the treatment of peritoneal mesothelioma in children.

Survival Benefit of Neoadjuvant Treatment in Clinical T3N0M0 Esophageal Cancer: Results From a Retrospective Multicenter European Study.

BACKGROUND: Based on current guidelines, clinical T3N0M0 esophageal tumors may or may not receive neoadjuvant treatment, according to their perception as locally advanced (cT3) or early-stage tumors (stage II). The study aim was to assess the impact of neoadjuvant treatment upon survival for cT3N0M0 esophageal cancer patients, with subgroup analyses by histological type (squamous cell carcinoma vs adenocarcinoma) and type of neoadjuvant treatment (chemotherapy vs radiochemotherapy). METHODS: Data from patients operated on for esophageal cancer in 30 European centers were collected. Among the 382 of 2944 patients with clinical T3N0M0 stage at initial diagnosis (13.0%), we compared those treated with primary surgery (S, n = 193) versus with neoadjuvant treatment plus surgery (NS, n = 189). RESULTS: The S and NS groups were similar regarding their demographic and surgical characteristics. In-hospital postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were comparable between groups. Patients were found to be pN+ in 64.2% versus 42.9% in the S and NS groups respectively (P < 0.001), pN2/N3 in 35.2% versus 21.2% (P < 0.001), stage 0 in 0% versus 16.4% (P < 0.001), and R0 in 81.3% versus 89.4% of cases (P = 0.026). Median overall and disease-free survivals were significantly better in the NS group, 38.4 versus 27.9 months (P = 0.007) and 31.6 versus 27.5 months (P = 0.040), respectively, and this difference remained for both histological types. Radiotherapy did not offer a benefit compared with chemotherapy alone (P = 0.687). In multivariable analysis, neoadjuvant treatment was an independent favorable prognostic factor (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58-0.99, P = 0.044). CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant treatment offers a significant survival benefit for clinical T3N0M0 esophageal cancer.

Could a Feeding Jejunostomy be Integrated into a Standardized Preoperative Management of Oeso-gastric Junction Adenocarcinoma?

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of a feeding jejunostomy (FJ) on the preoperative management of patients with an oesogastric adenocarcinoma (OGA). METHODS: From January 2007 to December 2014, patients with potentially resectable OGA were enrolled in a perioperative chemotherapy protocol. FJ was performed before starting perioperative treatments in patients presenting with dysphagia or with a nutritional risk index (NRI) <97.5. The patients who did not require a FJ served as a control group. RESULTS: Among the 114 patients with OGA consecutively admitted in our surgical department, 88 (77.2%) were enrolled for neoadjuvant treatment. A FJ was placed in 50 patients (56.8%) before the neoadjuvant treatment (FJ group), whereas 38 patients (43.2%) started neoadjuvant treatments without FJ (control group). Ninety-six percent of patients (n = 48) in the FJ group successfully completed the neoadjuvant treatment but only 81.6% of patients without FJ (n = 31; p = 0.004). The FJ group was divided between responders: 37 patients with a weight response (74%), and nonresponders: 13 patients without weight response (26%). In the FJ group, the nutritional response during preoperative chemotherapy was a significant predictive factor for the achievement of second stage oesogastric resection (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: FJ with enteral nutritional support during the preoperative management of OGA is a safe and effective support for the completion of the preoperative chemotherapy. The weight response to the enteral support is a predictor factor for a completion of the preoperative chemotherapy and could identify a group of patients who would have a better chance of reaching radical surgery.

Discrepancy Between Clinical and Pathologic Nodal Status of Esophageal Cancer and Impact on Prognosis and Therapeutic Strategy.

BACKGROUND: The impact of discrepancies between clinical (c) and pathologic (p) stages of esophageal cancer remains a poorly understood issue. This study aimed to compare the prognosis of patient groups treated by primary surgery including clinical N0/pathologic N0 (cN0pN0), clinical N0/pathologic N+ (cN0pN+), clinical N+/pathologic N0 (cN+pN0), and clinical N+/pathologic N+ (cN+pN+). METHODS: Data were collected from 30 European centers during the years 2000 to 2010. Among 2944 recruited patients, 1554 patients receiving primary surgery met the inclusion criteria including 613 cN0pN0, 403 cN0pN+, 220 cN+pN0, and 318 cN+pN+ patients. Analyses with adjustment of the propensity score were used to compensate for differences in baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Clinical T stages 3 and 4 were increased in cN+pN+ (73.0%), cN0pN+ (49.6%), and cN+pN0 (51.8%) compared with cN0pN0 (32.8%). Compared with cN0pN0, cN+pN+ and cN0pN+ showed an increase in the proportion of adenocarcinoma histologic subtype, poor tumor differentiation, pathologic T3 and T4 stages, and R1/2 resection margin. Adjusted 5-year overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 3.12; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.57-3.78; P < 0.001) and event-free survival (HR 2.87; 95% CI 2.39-3.45; P < 0.001) were significantly reduced in cN0pN+ compared with cN0pN0. No significant differences in 5-year overall survival or event-free survival between cN0pN+ and cN+pN+ were observed. Regression analysis identified an association of distal tumor location, advanced clinical T stage, and poor tumor differentiation with pN+ disease. CONCLUSIONS: This large multicenter study showed that cN0pN+ has a prognosis similar to that of cN+pN+ and worse than that of cN0pN0. Patients with clinical N0 disease but risk factors for pathologic N+ disease may benefit from neoadjuvant therapy before surgery.

Surgery Is an Effective Option after Failure of Chemoradiation in Cancers of the Anal Canal and Anal Margin.

BACKGROUND: Surgery for anal canal cancer (ACC) and anal margin cancer (AMC) is the only curative option after failure of chemoradiotherapy (CRT). This study aimed to determine the efficacy of surgery for ACC or AMC after failed CRT. METHODS: This was a single-centre, retrospective study of 161 patients initially treated with CRT. We compared the survival rates of patients successfully treated by CRT with those of patients whose CRT failed (both surgically salvaged and treated palliatively). RESULTS: Thirty-one patients underwent surgery with curative intent, 20 received palliative treatment after failure of CRT, and 110 had effective CRT. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was significantly higher among patients with successful CRT than among patients who underwent surgery with curative intent (86 vs. 66%, p < 0.001). On the other hand, the 5-year OS of patients treated with curative surgery was significantly better than that of patients who underwent palliative treatment (66 vs. 13.5%, p < 0.001). The postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were 32 and 3%, respectively. Considering patients with failed CRT, curative surgery was the only factor prognostic of favourable OS in the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Curative surgery after failure of CRT for ACC or AMC remains an effective treatment to improve survival in two-thirds of cases, resulting in high but manageable morbidity.