A systematic review of minimal length of lroximal margin in gastric adenocarcinoma resection.

For early distal gastric cancers, a proximal margin (PM) > 2-3 cm might probably be sufficient. For advanced tumors, many confounding factors have a prognostic impact on survival and recurrence and negative margin involvement may be more relevant than negative margin length. INTRODUCTION: In gastric cancer surgery, microscopic positive margin is a poor prognostic factor whereas complete resection with tumor-free margins remains a challenging issue. European guidelines recommended a macroscopic margin of 5 or even 8 cm for diffuse-type cancers to achieve R0 resection. However, it is unclear if the length of negative proximal margin (PM) could have a prognostic impact on survival. We aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature analyzing PM length and its prognostic impact in gastric adenocarcinoma. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Pubmed and Embase databases were searched for "gastric cancer" or "gastric adenocarcinoma," combined with "proximal margin," between January 1990 and June 2021. English-written studies that specified PM length were included. Survival data, in relation to PM, were extracted. RESULTS: Twelve retrospective studies, with a total number of 10,067 patients, met inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Mean length of proximal margin on the whole population varied from 2.6 to 5.29 cm. Three studies found minimal PM cut-off to improve overall survival in univariate analysis. Concerning recurrence-free survival analysis, only 2 series showed better results with PM > 2 or > 3 cm, using Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate analysis demonstrated an independent impact of PM on overall survival in 2 studies. CONCLUSION: For early distal gastric cancers, a PM > 2-3 cm might probably be sufficient. For advanced or proximal tumors, many confounding factors have a prognostic impact on survival and recurrence and negative margin involvement may be more relevant than negative margin length.

Risk factors of anastomosis-related difficult endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography following endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastro-gastrostomy using a standardized protocol (with video).

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about how to perform the endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-directed transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP; EDGE) in patients with gastric bypass using lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS). The aim was to assess the risk factors of anastomosis-related difficult ERCP. METHODS: Observational single-center study. All patients who underwent an EDGE procedure in 2020-2022 following a standardized protocol were included. Risk factors for difficult ERCP, defined as the need of >5 min LAMS dilation or failure to pass a duodenoscope in the second duodenum, were assessed. RESULTS: Forty-five ERCPs were performed in 31 patients (57.4 ± 8.2 years old, 38.7% male). The EUS procedure was done using a wire-guided technique (n = 28, 90.3%) for biliary stones (n = 22, 71%) in most cases. The location of the anastomosis was gastro-gastric (n = 24, 77.4%) and mainly in the middle-excluded stomach (n = 21, 67.7%) with an oblique axis (n = 22, 71%). The ERCP technical success was 96.8%. There were 10 difficult ERCPs (32.3%) due to timing (n = 8), anastomotic dilation (n = 8), or failure to pass (n = 3). By multivariable analysis adjusted by two-stage procedures, the risk factors for a difficult ERCP were the jejuno-gastric route (85.7% vs. 16.7%; odds ratio [ORa ] 31.875; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.649-616.155; P = 0.022), and the anastomosis to the proximal/distal excluded stomach (70% vs. 14.3%; ORa 22.667; 95% CI 1.676-306.570; P = 0.019). There was only one complication (3.2%) and one persistent gastro-gastric fistula (3.2%) in a median follow-up of 4 months (2-18 months), with no weight regain (P = 0.465). CONCLUSIONS: The jejunogastric route and the anastomosis with the proximal/distal excluded stomach during the EDGE procedure increase the difficulty of ERCP.

Upfront progression under pembrolizumab followed by a complete response after encorafenib and cetuximab treatment in BRAF V600E-mutated and microsatellite unstable metastatic colorectal cancer patient: A case report.

Two new treatments have recently become standard care for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): encorafenib (BRAF inhibitor) associated with cetuximab (anti-EGFR) in the second or third line of chemotherapy for BRAF V600E tumors, and pembrolizumab (an anti PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor) for tumors harboring microsatellite instability (MSI)-high and/or deficient mismatch repair (dMMR). Furthermore, 30% of BRAF V600E mutated mCRC are MSI/dMMR through a sporadic hypermethylation of the promoter of hMLH1. We report here, for the first time, the case of a patient with BRAF V600E, PIK3CA, and SMAD4 mutated and dMMR/MSI mCRC, in whom we observed an atypical response pattern under the sequence of pembrolizumab followed by the doublet encorafenib and cetuximab treatment. The patient was progressive after a single cycle of pembrolizumab followed by a rapid complete response after only 2 months of treatment with encorafenib and cetuximab, discovered during R0 cytoreduction surgery for peritoneal carcinomatosis.

Is Adjuvant Chemotherapy Necessary for Obstructing Stage II Colon Cancer? Results From a Propensity Score Analysis of the French Surgical Association Database.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the survival of patients with stage II obstructing colon cancer (OCC) who had adjuvant chemotherapy with those who did not. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The need for adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II colon cancer is still debated. METHODS: All consecutive patients treated for a stage II OCC in a curative intent (with primary tumor resection) between January 2000 and December 2015 were included in this retrospective, multicenter cohort study which included a propensity score analysis using an odds of treatment weighting (Average Treatment effect on the Treated, ATT). The endpoint was the comparison between the 2 groups for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) according to whether or not patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: During the study period, 504 patients underwent a curative colectomy for a stage II OCC. Among these patients, 179 (35.5%) had adjuvant chemotherapy and 325 (64.5%) had no adjuvant treatment. Among the 179 patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy, 108 patients (60%) received oxaliplatin based regimen and 99 patients (55%) completed all scheduled cycles. At multivariate analysis, after weighting by the odds (ATT analysis) and adjustment, adjuvant chemotherapy after resection of a stage II OCC was associated with improvements in OS [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.42 (0.17-0.99), P = 0.0498] and DFS [HR = 0.57 (0.37-0.88), P = 0.0116]. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that adjuvant chemotherapy after curative resection of stage II OCC may improve oncological outcomes.

Management of Pathogenic CDH1 Variant Carriers Within the FREGAT Network: A Multicentric Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the management of pathogenic CDH1 variant carriers (pCDH1vc) within the FREGAT (FRench Eso-GAsTric tumor) network. Primary objective focused on clinical outcomes and pathological findings, Secondary objective was to identify risk factor predicting postoperative morbidity (POM). BACKGROUND: Prophylactic total gastrectomy (PTG) remains the recommended option for gastric cancer risk management in pCDH1vc with, however, endoscopic surveillance as an alternative. METHODS: A retrospective observational multicenter study was carried out between 2003 and 2021. Data were reported as median (interquartile range) or as counts (proportion). Usual tests were used for univariate analysis. Risk factors of overall and severe POM (ie, Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or more) were identified with a binary logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 99 patients including 14 index cases were reported from 11 centers. Median survival among index cases was 12.0 (7.6-16.4) months with most of them having peritoneal carcinomatosis at diagnosis (71.4%). Among the remaining 85 patients, 77 underwent a PTG [median age=34.6 (23.7-46.2), American Society of Anesthesiologists score 1: 75%] mostly via a minimally invasive approach (51.9%). POM rate was 37.7% including 20.8% of severe POM, with age 40 years and above and low-volume centers as predictors ( P =0.030 and 0.038). After PTG, the cancer rate on specimen was 54.5% (n=42, all pT1a) of which 59.5% had no cancer detected on preoperative endoscopy (n=25). CONCLUSIONS: Among pCDH1vc, index cases carry a dismal prognosis. The risk of cancer among patients undergoing PTG remained high and unpredictable and has to be balanced with the morbidity and functional consequence of PTG.

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.

End Colostomy With or Without Mesh to Prevent a Parastomal Hernia (GRECCAR 7): A Prospective, Randomized, Double Blinded, Multicentre Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether systematic mesh implantation upon primary colostomy creation was effective to prevent PSH. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous randomized trials on prevention of PSH by mesh placement have shown contradictory results. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized controlled trial in 18 hospitals in France on patients aged ≥18 receiving a first colostomy for an indication other than infection. Participants were randomized by blocks of random size, stratified by center in a 1:1 ratio to colostomy with or without a synthetic, lightweight monofilament mesh. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to patient group. The primary endpoint was clinically diagnosed PSH rate at 24 months of the intention-to-treat population. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01380860. RESULTS: From November 2012 to October 2016, 200 patients were enrolled. Finally, 65 patients remained in the no mesh group (Group A) and 70 in the mesh group (Group B) at 24 months with the most common reason for drop-out being death (n = 41). At 24 months, PSH was clinically detected in 28 patients (28%) in Group A and 30 (31%) in Group B [P = 0.77, odds ratio = 1.15 95% confidence interval = (0.62;2.13)]. Stoma-related complications were reported in 32 Group A patients and 37 Group B patients, but no mesh infections. There were no deaths related to mesh insertion. CONCLUSION: We failed to show efficiency of a prophylactic mesh on PSH rate. Placement of a mesh in a retro-muscular position with a central incision to allow colon passage cannot be recommended to prevent PSH. Optimization of mesh location and reinforcement material should be performed.

Does neoadjuvant FOLFOX chemotherapy improve the prognosis of high-risk Stage II and III colon cancers? Three years' follow-up results of the PRODIGE 22 phase II randomized multicentre trial.

AIM: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy has proven valuable in locally advanced resectable colon cancer (CC) but its effect on oncological outcomes is uncertain. The aim of the present paper was to report 3-year oncological outcomes, representing the secondary endpoints of the PRODIGE 22 trial. METHOD: PRODIGE 22 was a randomized multicentre phase II trial in high-risk T3, T4 and/or N2 CC patients on CT scan. Patients were randomized between 6 months of adjuvant FOLFOX (upfront surgery) or perioperative FOLFOX (four cycles before surgery and eight cycles after; FOLFOX perioperative). In wild-type RAS patients, a third arm testing perioperative FOLFOX-cetuximab was added. The primary endpoint was the tumour regression grade. Secondary endpoints were 3-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), recurrence-free survival (RFS) and time to recurrence (TTR). RESULTS: Overall, 120 patients were enrolled. At interim analysis, the FOLFOX-cetuximab arm was stopped for futility. The remaining 104 patients represented our intention-to-treat population. In the perioperative group, 96% received the scheduled four neoadjuvant cycles and all but one had adjuvant FOLFOX for eight cycles. In the control arm, 38 (73%) patients received adjuvant FOLFOX. The median follow-up was 54.3 months. Three-year OS was 90.4% in both arms [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.85], 3-year DFS, RFS and TTR were, respectively, 76.8% and 69.2% (HR=0.94), 73% and 69.2% (HR = 0.86) and 82% and 72% (HR = 0.67) in the perioperative and control arms, respectively. Forest plots did not show any subgroup with significant difference for survival outcomes. No benefit from adding cetuximab was observed. CONCLUSION: Perioperative FOLFOX has no detrimental effect on long-term oncological outcomes and may be an option for some patients with locally advanced CC.

NORAD01-GRECCAR16 multicenter phase III non-inferiority randomized trial comparing preoperative modified FOLFIRINOX without irradiation to radiochemotherapy for resectable locally advanced rectal cancer (intergroup FRENCH-GRECCAR- PRODIGE trial).

BACKGROUND: Preoperative radiochemotherapy (RCT) is recommended in France prior to total mesorectal excision in patients with mid or low locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) (cT3/T4 and/or N+) because it has been shown to improve local control. Preoperative RCT has also disadvantages including the absence of proven impact on metastatic recurrence and the risk of late side effects on bowel and genitourinary function. In patients with primarily resectable LARC, preoperative systemic chemotherapy without pelvic irradiation could be used as an alternative to RCT. METHODS: This study is a multicenter, open-label randomized, 2-arm phase III non-inferiority trial. Patients with mid or low resectable LARC (cT3N0 or cT1-T3N+ with circumferential resection margin [CRM] > 2 mm on pretreatment MRI) will be randomized to either modified FOLFIRINOX for 3 months or RCT (Cap50 intensified-modulated radiotherapy). All patients have restaging MRI after preoperative treatment. The primary endpoint is 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) from the time to randomization including progression during preoperative treatment. Secondary endpoints are treatment related toxicity, treatment compliance, R0 resection rate, sphincter saving surgery rate, postoperative morbidity and mortality rates, loco-regional recurrence free survival, overall survival, bowel and sexual functions at diagnosis, quality of life, radiologic and pathologic response after preoperative treatment. The number of patients required is 574. DISCUSSION: The choice of modified FOLFIRINOX for preoperative chemotherapy is supported by recent and consistent data on safety and efficacy of this regimen on rectal cancer. The use of preoperative chemotherapy instead of RCT could be associated with pronounced advantages in terms of functional results and quality of life in cancer survivors. However and first of all, the non-inferiority of preoperative chemotherapy compared to RCT on oncologic outcome has to be validated. If this study demonstrates the non-inferiority of chemotherapy compared to RCT, this can lead to a crucial change in clinical practice in a large subset of rectal cancer patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03875781 (March 15, 2019). Version 1.1.

Short-term and Long-term Outcome of Endoluminal Vacuum Therapy for Colorectal or Coloanal Anastomotic Leakage: Results of a Nationwide Multicenter Cohort Study From the French GRECCAR Group.

BACKGROUND: The indications and efficacy of endoluminal vacuum therapy for the management of colorectal/coloanal anastomotic leakage are not well defined. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and to define adequate indications of endoluminal vacuum therapy to treat colorectal/coloanal anastomotic leakage. DESIGN: The retrospective cohort evaluated in this study is based on a prospectively maintained database. SETTINGS: This study was conducted in 8 centers from the French GRECCAR study group. PATIENTS: Patients with colorectal/coloanal anastomotic leakage treated with endoluminal vacuum therapy were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measured was the success rate of endoluminal vacuum therapy defined by the complete healing of the perianastomotic sepsis and a functional anastomosis. The predictive factors of success of endoluminal vacuum therapy and long-term functional result (low anterior resection syndrome score) were also analyzed. RESULTS: Among 62 patients treated for an anastomotic leakage of colorectal/coloanal anastomosis from 2012 to 2017, 47 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The patients had a mean of 6.6 (±5.8) replacements for a total of 27 (±34) days treatment duration, associated with diverting stoma in 81%. After 37 months median follow-up, a successful treatment of anastomotic leakage using endoluminal vacuum therapy could be achieved in 26 patients (55%). The success rate was improved in patients undergoing primary endoluminal vacuum therapy compared to salvage endoluminal vacuum therapy (73% vs 33%, p = 0.006) and when endoluminal vacuum therapy was initiated within 15 days compared to more than 15 days after the diagnosis of anastomotic leakage (72.4% vs 27.8%, p = 0.003). At 12 months, 53% of patients who responded had minor low anterior resection syndrome and only 3 necessitated anastomotic stricture dilation. LIMITATIONS: This was a noncomparative cohort study. CONCLUSION: Endoluminal vacuum therapy appears to be effective to treat colorectal anastomotic leakage especially when it is used as primary treatment of the fistula. Long-term functional outcome of patients undergoing conservative management of anastomotic leakage may be improved with endoluminal vacuum therapy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B103. RESULTADOS A CORTO Y LARGO PLAZO DE LA TERAPIA DE VACÍO ENDOLUMINAL PARA LA FUGA ANASTOMÓTICA COLORRECTAL O COLOANAL: RESULTADOS DE UN ESTUDIO DE COHORTE MULTICÉNTRICO A NIVEL NACIONAL DEL GRUPO FRANCÉS GRECCAR: Las indicaciones y la eficacia de la terapia de vacío endoluminal para el tratamiento de la fuga anastomótica colorrectal / coloanal no están bien definidas.Evaluar la eficacia y definir indicaciones adecuadas de la terapia de vacío endoluminal para tratar la fuga anastomótica colorrectal / coloanal.Cohorte retrospectivo basada en una base de datos mantenida prospectivamente.Este estudio se realizó en 8 centros del grupo de estudio Francés GRECCAR.Se incluyeron pacientes con fuga anastomótica colorrectal / coloanal tratados con terapia de vacío endoluminal.Tasa de éxito de la terapia de vacío endoluminal definida por la curación completa de la sepsis perianastomótica y una anastomosis funcional. También se analizaron los factores predictivos del éxito de la terapia de vacío endoluminal y el resultado funcional a largo plazo (puntaje bajo del síndrome de resección anterior).Entre 62 pacientes tratados por una fuga anastomótica de anastomosis colorrectal / coloanal de 2012 a 2017, 47 cumplieron los criterios de inclusión. Los pacientes tuvieron una media de 6.6 (±5.8) reemplazos para un total de 27 (±34) días de duración del tratamiento, asociado con estoma de desvio en el 81%. Después de una mediana de seguimiento de 37 meses, se pudo lograr un tratamiento exitoso de la fuga anastomótica usando terapia de vacío endoluminal en 26 pacientes (55%). La tasa de éxito mejoró en pacientes sometidos a terapia de vacío endoluminal primaria en comparación con la terapia de vacío endoluminal de rescate (73% frente a 33%, p = 0.006) y cuando la terapia de vacío endoluminal se inició dentro de los 15 días en comparación con más de 15 días después del diagnóstico de fuga anastomótica (72.4% vs 27.8%, p = 0.003). A los 12 meses, el 53% de los pacientes que respondieron tenían síndrome de resección anterior baja leve y solo 3 necesitaban dilatación de estenosis anastomótica.Estudio de cohorte no comparativo.La terapia de vacío endoluminal parece ser efectiva para tratar la fuga anastomótica colorrectal, especialmente cuando se usa como tratamiento primario de la fístula. El resultado funcional a largo plazo de los pacientes sometidos a un tratamiento conservador de la fuga anastomótica puede mejorarse con la terapia de vacío endoluminal. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B103.

Impact of hospital volume on outcomes after emergency management of obstructive colon cancer: a nationwide study of 1957 patients.

PURPOSE: Volume-outcome relationship is well established in elective colorectal surgery for cancer, but little is known for patients managed for obstructive colon cancer (OCC). We aimed to compare the management and outcomes according to the hospital volume in this particular setting. METHODS: Patients managed for OCC between 2005 and 2015 in centers of the French National Surgical Association were retrospectively analyzed. Hospital volume was dichotomized between low and high volume on the median number of patients included per center during the study period. RESULTS: A total of 1957 patients with OCC were managed in 56 centers with a median number of 28 (1-123) patients per center: 298 (15%) were treated in low-volume hospitals (LVHs) and 1659 (85%) in high-volume hospitals (HVHs). Patients in LVH were significantly younger, and had fewer comorbidities and synchronous metastases. Proximal diverting stoma was the preferred surgical option in LVH (p < 0.0001), whereas tumor resection with primary anastomosis was more frequently performed in HVH (p < 0.0001). Cumulative morbidity (59 vs. 50%, p = 0.003), mortality (13 vs. 8%, p = 0.03), and length of hospital stay (22 ± 19 vs. 18 ± 14 days, p = 0.002) were significantly higher in LVH. At multivariate analysis, LVH was a predictor for cumulative morbidity (p < 0.0001) and mortality (p = 0.03). There was no difference between the two groups for tumor resection and stoma rates, and for oncological outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The hospital volume has no impact on outcomes after the first-stage surgery in OCC patients. When all surgical stages are considered, hospital volume influences cumulative postoperative morbidity and mortality but has no impact on oncological outcomes.

30-Day Postoperative Morbidity of Emergency Surgery for Obstructive Right- and Left-Sided Colon Cancer in Obese Patients: A Multicenter Cohort Study of the French Surgical Association.

BACKGROUND: Emergency surgery impairs postoperative outcomes in colorectal cancer patients. No study has assessed the relationship between obesity and postoperative results in this setting. OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of emergency surgery for obstructive colon cancer (OCC) in an obese patient population with those in overweight and normal weight patient groups. METHODS: From 2000 to 2015, patients undergoing emergency surgery for OCC in French surgical centers members of the French National Surgical Association were included. Three groups were defined: normal weight (body mass index [BMI] < 25.0 kg/m2), overweight (BMI 25.0-29.9 kg/m2), and obese (BMI ≥30.0 kg/m2). RESULTS: Of 1,241 patients, 329 (26.5%) were overweight and 143 (11.5%) were obese. Obese patients had significantly higher American society of anesthesiologists score, more cardiovascular comorbidity and more hemodynamic instability at presentation. Overall postoperative mortality and morbidity were 8 and 51%, respectively, with no difference between the 3 groups. For obese patients with left-sided OCC, stoma-related complications were significantly increased (8 vs. 5 vs. 15%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Compared with lower BMI patients, obese patients with OCC had a more severe presentation at admission but similar surgical management. Obesity did not increase 30-day postoperative morbidity except stoma-related complications for those with left-sided OCC.

Does A Longer Waiting Period After Neoadjuvant Radio-chemotherapy Improve the Oncological Prognosis of Rectal Cancer?: Three Years' Follow-up Results of the Greccar-6 Randomized Multicenter Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to report the 3-year survival results of the GRECCAR-6 trial. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Current data on the effect of an extended interval between radiochemotherapy (RCT) and resection for rectal cancer on the rate of complete pathological response (pCR = ypT0N0) is controversial. Furthermore, its effect on oncological outcomes is unknown. METHODS: The GRECCAR-6 trial was a phase III, multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, controlled trial. Patients with cT3/T4 or TxN+ tumors of the mid or lower rectum who had received RCT (45-50 Gy with 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine) were included and randomized into a 7- or 11-week waiting period. Primary endpoint was the pCR rate. Secondary endpoints were 3-year overall (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and recurrence rates. RESULTS: A total of 265 patients from 24 participating centers were enrolled. A total of 253 patients underwent a mesorectal excision. Overall pCR rate was 17% (43/253). Mean follow-up from surgical resection was 32 ±â€Š8 months. Twenty-four deaths occurred with an 89% OS at 3 years. DFS was 68.7% at 3 years (75 recurrences). Three-year local and distant recurrences were 7.9% and 23.8%, respectively. The randomization group had no impact on the 3-year OS (P = 0.8868) or DFS (P = 0.9409). Distant (P = 0.7432) and local (P = 0.3944) recurrences were also not influenced by the waiting period. DFS was independently influenced by 3 factors: circumferential radial margin (CRM) ≤1 mm [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.03; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.17-3.51], ypT3-T4 (HR = 2.69; 95% CI, 1.19-6.08) and positive lymph nodes (HR = 3.62; 95% CI, 1.89-6.91). CONCLUSION: Extending the waiting period by 4 weeks following RCT has no influence on the oncological outcomes of T3/T4 rectal cancers.

What is the Best Option Between Primary Diverting Stoma or Endoscopic Stent as a Bridge to Surgery with a Curative Intent for Obstructed Left Colon Cancer? Results from a Propensity Score Analysis of the French Surgical Association Multicenter Cohort of 518 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic stent (ES) as a bridge to surgery in obstructed left colon cancer (OLCC) is controversial. Our goal was to compare the operative and oncological results of primary diverting colostomy (PDC) and ES for the curative treatment of OLCC. METHODS: Between 2000 and 2015, patients who underwent PDC or ES in a curative intent for OLCC at member centers of the French Surgical Association were included. Patients with unresectable tumors and/or synchronous metastases were excluded. Comparisons between the two groups were performed after ponderation with propensity score for: demographic and tumor characteristics, operative, and oncological results. RESULTS: A total of 518 patients were included: PDC (n = 327); ES (n = 191). The demographic characteristics were similar between the groups. ES failed in 23% of the patients (11% perforation). Cumulative tumor resection rates were 80% and 86% after PDC and ES, respectively (p = 0.049). The rates of primary anastomosis were 57% in the PDC group and 40% in the ES group (p < 0.0001). The permanent stoma rates were similar between the two groups (29% vs. 28%, p = 0.0586). Cumulative overall, surgical, and medical complications were significantly higher in PDC group. The resected tumors were significantly smaller and less frequently perforated and metastatic in the PDC group. The median overall survival was significantly higher after PDC (123.6 vs. 58.5 months, p = 0.046), whereas the median disease-free survival was similar between the two groups (54.1 vs. 53.6 months, p = 0.646). CONCLUSIONS: Although endoscopic stenting is associated with better surgical outcomes than diverting stoma, it may negatively impact histological features and overall survival.

Multicenter phase III randomized trial comparing laparoscopy and laparotomy for colon cancer surgery in patients older than 75 years: the CELL study, a Fédération de Recherche en Chirurgie (FRENCH) trial.

BACKGROUND: Several multicenter randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopy and conventional open surgery for colon cancer have demonstrated that laparoscopic approach achieved the same oncological results while improving significantly early postoperative outcomes. These trials included few elderly patients, with a median age not exceeding 71 years. However, colon cancer is a disease of the elderly. More than 65% of patients operated on for colon cancer belong to this age group, and this proportion may become more pronounced in the coming years. In current practice, laparoscopy is underused in this population. METHODS: The CELL (Colectomy for cancer in the Elderly by Laparoscopy or Laparotomy) trial is a multicenter, open-label randomized, 2-arm phase III superiority trial. Patients aged 75 years or older with uncomplicated colonic adenocarcinoma or endoscopically unresectable colonic polyp will be randomized to either colectomy by laparoscopy or laparotomy. The primary endpoint of the study is overall postoperative morbidity, defined as any complication classification occurring up to 30 days after surgery. The secondary endpoints are: 30-day and 90-day postoperative mortality, 30-day readmission rate, quality of surgical resection, health-related quality of life and evolution of geriatric assessment. A 35 to 20% overall postoperative morbidity rate reduction is expected for patients operated on by laparoscopy compared with those who underwent surgery by laparotomy. With a two-sided α risk of 5% and a power of 80% (ß = 0.20), 276 patients will be required in total. DISCUSSION: To date, no dedicated randomized controlled trial has been conducted to evaluate morbidity after colon cancer surgery by laparoscopy or laparotomy in the elderly and the benefits of laparoscopy is still debated in this context. Thus, a prospective multicenter randomized trial evaluating postoperative outcomes specifically in elderly patients operated on for colon cancer by laparoscopy or laparotomy with curative intent is warranted. If significant, such a study might change the current surgical practices and allow a significant improvement in the surgical management of this population, which will be the vast majority of patients treated for colon cancer in the coming years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03033719 (January 27, 2017).

Tumor-size responses to first-line is a predictor of overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Early tumor shrinkage (ETS) has been reported to be associated with survival of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. Our aim was to analyze long-term tumor-size evolution, according to early mCRC best responses during the first-line therapy, to evaluate first best response-survival links. METHODS: Sixty-five patients with unresectable mCRCs, treated between 2010 and 2015, were included retrospectively in this descriptive monocenter study and grouped according to their RECIST 1.1 first-line best responses: progressive disease (PDfl), stable disease with tumor-size evolution between 0 and + 19% (SDfl+) or 0 and - 29% (SDfl-), and partial responders (PRs), who were classed PR with ETS (ETSfl) or without (PRfl). Tumor-size evolution and best tumor responses to each chemotherapy line were analyzed. RESULTS: Tumor loads of ETSfl or PRfl mCRCs tended to remain inferior to their initial values: 60% of patients died with target lesion sums below baseline. For first-line SDfl+ or PDfl mCRCs, rapid tumor load increases continued during successive lines: > 80% died with target lesion sums above baseline. ETSfl mCRCs responded better to subsequent lines (37.5% second-line PR), whereas PDfl mCRCs remained refractory to other therapies (0% second- and third-line PR). Overall survival rates were significantly (p = 0.03) longer for the ETSfl group (29.9 [95% CI: 12.6-47.1] months) and shorter for the PDfl group (17.1 [95% CI: 1.5-37.5] months). CONCLUSION: Tumors responding to first-line chemotherapy also responded better to subsequent lines, whereas PDfl mCRCs remained refractory, which may explain the better survival associated with ETSfl. KEY POINTS: • Early shrinking tumors under first-line chemotherapy responded better to subsequent lines, maintaining low tumor loads, potentially explaining the link between early tumor shrinkage and overall survival of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. • mCRCs progressing under first-line chemotherapy remained refractory to other therapies and their tumor loads increased rapidly. • Even outside a clinical trial, an early first CT scan reevaluation with RECIST criteria 8 weeks after starting first-line therapy is crucial to determine long-term mCRC evolution.

Emergency Surgery for Obstructive Colon Cancer in Elderly Patients: Results of a Multicentric Cohort of the French National Surgical Association.

BACKGROUND: Although elderly patients constitute most of the patients undergoing surgery for obstructed colon cancer, available data in the literature are very limited. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the management and outcomes of elderly patients treated for obstructed colon cancer. DESIGN: This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: Between 2000 and 2015, 2325 patients managed for an obstructed colon cancer in member centers of the French National Surgical Association were identified. Data were collected by each center on a voluntary basis after institutional approval. Bowel obstruction was defined clinically and confirmed by imaging. PATIENTS: Three age groups were defined, including patients <75 years, 75 to 84 years, and ≥85 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Postoperative and oncologic results in elderly patients with an obstructed colon cancer were measured. Relative survival was calculated as the ratio of the overall survival with the survival that would have been expected based on the corresponding general population. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 302 patients (13%) underwent colonic stent insertion, and 1992 (87%) underwent surgery as emergency procedure. RESULTS: A total of 2294 patients were analyzed (<75 y, n = 1200 (52%); 75-84 y, n = 650 (28%); and ≥85 y, n = 444 (20%)). Elderly patients were more likely to be women (p < 0.0001), to have proximal colon cancer (p < 0.0001), and to have a higher incidence of comorbidities (p < 0.0001). The use of colonic stent or the type of surgery was identical regardless of age. In patients with resected colon cancer, elderly patients had less stage IV disease (p < 0.0001). The absence of tumor resection (p < 0.0001) and definitive stoma rate increased with age (p < 0.0001). Postoperative mortality and morbidity were significantly higher in elderly patients (p < 0.0001), but surgical morbidity was similar across age groups (p = 0.60). Postoperative morbidity was correlated to the 6-month mortality rate in elderly (p < 0.0001). Overall and disease-free survivals were significantly lower in more elderly patients (p < 0.0001) but relative survival was not (p = 0.09). LIMITATIONS: It is quite difficult to know how to interpret these data as a whole, given the inherent bias in the study population, lack of ability to stratify by performance status, and long study period duration. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients have high morbidity with lower survival in the highest age ranges of elderly subgroups. These data should be considered when deciding on an operative approach. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A964.

Right-sided vs. left-sided obstructing colonic cancer: results of a multicenter study of the French Surgical Association in 2325 patients and literature review.

PURPOSE: Few studies compared management and outcomes of obstructing colonic cancer (OCC), according to the tumor site. Our aim was to compare patient and tumor characteristics, postoperative and pathological results, and oncological outcomes after emergency management of right-sided vs. left-sided OCC. METHODS: A national cohort study including all consecutive patients managed for OCC from 2000 to 2015 in French surgical centers members of the French National Surgical Association (AFC). RESULTS: During the study period, 2325 patients with OCC were divided in right-sided (n = 819, 35%) and left-sided (n = 1506, 65%) locations. Patients with right-sided OCC were older, more frequently females, and associated with comorbidities, history of cancer, or previous laparotomy. Surgical management was more frequently performed for right-sided than left-sided OCC (99 vs. 96%, p < 0.0001). Tumor resection was more frequently performed in right-sided OCC (95 vs. 90%, p < 0.0001). Among the resected patients, primary anastomosis was more frequently performed in case of right-sided OCC (86 vs. 62%, p < 0.0001). Definitive stoma rate was lower in right-sided location (17 vs. 46%, p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference between locations in terms of cumulative morbidity, anastomotic leak, unplanned reoperation, and mortality. Five-year overall and disease-free survival rates were significantly lower in right-sided OCC (43 and 36%) than in left-sided OCC (53 and 46%, p < 0.0001 and p = 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although patients with right-sided OCC are frailer than left-sided OCC, tumor resection and anastomosis are more frequently performed, without difference in surgical results. However, right-sided OCC is associated with worse prognosis than distal location.

The "Short-Cut" Laparoscopic Reverse Approach: A Novel Strategy for Synchronous Colorectal Cancer and Liver Metastases Requiring Major or Complex Procedures?

AIM: To report on the feasibility and the safety of a novel strategy in patients with colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases (SLM) requiring major or complex procedures for both the primary and liver deposits. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The strategy consisted in performing the two major procedures (liver first and colorectal) by laparoscopy within a short interval in order to keep both oncological advantages and short-terms outcome benefits. RESULTS: Two patients were treated with this strategy: one with a laparoscopic resection of segment VIII extended to the segment IVb followed by the laparosopic rectal resection; the second with a laparoscopic left hepatectomy with a microwave ablation of the lesion located in the segment VII followed by the laparoscopic resection of the sigmoid colon. Postoperative courses were uneventful. CONCLUSION: The "short-cut" laparoscopic reverse approach may represent an attractive option for patients requiring major liver and colorectal resections for SLM provided expertise in laparoscopic surgery in both fields is ensured.

Prognostic factors and patterns of recurrence after emergency management for obstructing colon cancer: multivariate analysis from a series of 2120 patients.

PURPOSE: At equal TNM stage, obstructing colon cancer (OCC) is associated with worse prognosis in comparison with uncomplicated cancer. Our aim was to identify prognostic factors of overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients treated for OCC. METHODS: From 2000 to 2015, 2325 patients were treated for OCC in French surgical centers, members of the French National Surgical Association (AFC). Patients with palliative management were excluded. The main endpoints were OS and DFS. A multivariate analysis, using Cox proportional hazards regression model, was performed to determine independent prognostic factors. RESULTS: The cohort included 2120 patients. The median of follow-up was 13.2 months. In multivariate analysis, age > 75 years, ASA score ≥ 3, ECOG score ≥ 3, right-sided colon cancer, presence of synchronous metastases, anastomotic leakage, and absence of adjuvant chemotherapy were independent OS factors. Age > 75 years, ASA score ≥ 3, right-sided colon cancer, presence of synchronous metastases, and absence of postoperative chemotherapy were independent factors of poor OS after exclusion of patients who died postoperatively. Age ≥ 75 years, ASA score ≥ 3, ECOG score ≥ 3, right-sided colon cancer, lymph node involvement, presence of vascular, lymphatic or perineural invasion, less than 12 harvested lymph nodes, and absence of adjuvant chemotherapy were independent DFS factors. CONCLUSIONS: Management of OCC should take into account prognostic factors related to the patient (age, comorbidities), tumor location, and tumor stage. Adjuvant chemotherapy administration plays an important role. For patients undergoing initial defunctionning stoma, neoadjuvant chemotherapy could be an option to improve prognosis.