Local Regrowth and the Risk of Distant Metastases Among Patients Undergoing Watch-and-Wait for Rectal Cancer: What Is the Best Control Group? Multicenter Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: A proportion of rectal cancer patients who achieve a clinical complete response may develop local regrowth. Although salvage appears to provide appropriate local control, the risk of distant metastases is less known. OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of distant metastases between patients who achieve a clinical complete response (watch-and-wait strategy) and subsequent local regrowth and patients managed by surgery after chemoradiation. DESIGN: Retrospective multicenter cohort study. SETTINGS: This study used data of patients from 3 institutions who were treated between 1993 and 2019. PATIENTS: Patients with initial clinical complete response (after neoadjuvant therapy) followed by local regrowth and patients with near-complete pathological response (≤10%) after straightforward surgery after chemoradiation were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors for distant metastases. Kaplan-Meier curves were created (log-rank test) to compare survival outcomes. Analyses were performed using time zero as last day of radiation therapy or as date of salvage resection in the local regrowth group. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 79 patients with local regrowth developed distant metastases, whereas only 10 of 74 after upfront total mesorectal excision following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy ( p = 0.04). Local regrowth and final pathology (ypT3-4) were the only independent risk factors associated with distant metastases. When using date of salvage resection as time zero, distant metastases-free survival rates were significantly inferior for patients with local regrowth (70% vs 86%; p = 0.01). LIMITATIONS: Small number of patients, many neoadjuvant therapies, and selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing watch-and-wait strategy who develop local regrowth are at higher risk for development of distant metastases compared to patients with near-complete pathological response managed by upfront surgery after chemoradiation. See Video Abstract. NUEVO CRECIMIENTO LOCAL Y EL RIESGO DE METSTASIS A DISTANCIA ENTRE PACIENTES SOMETIDOS A OBSERVACIN Y ESPERA POR CNCER DE RECTO CUL ES EL MEJOR GRUPO DE CONTROL ESTUDIO RETROSPECTIVO MUTICNTRICO: ANTECEDENTES:Una proporción de pacientes que logran una respuesta clínica completa pueden desarrollar un nuevo crecimiento local. Si bien el rescate parece proporcionar un control local apropiado, el riesgo de metástasis a distancia es menos conocido.OBJETIVO:Comparar el riesgo de metástasis a distancia entre los pacientes que logran una respuesta clínica completa (estrategia de observación y espera) y el nuevo crecimiento local posterior con los pacientes tratados con cirugía después de la quimiorradiación.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte multicéntrico retrospectivo.CONFIGURACIÓN:Este estudio utilizó datos de pacientes de 3 instituciones que fueron tratados entre 1993 y 2019.PACIENTES:Pacientes con respuesta clínica completa inicial (después de la terapia neoadyuvante) seguida de crecimiento local nuevo y pacientes con respuesta patológica casi completa (≤10 %) después de cirugía directa después de quimiorradiación.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se realizó un análisis univariante/multivariante para identificar los factores de riesgo de metástasis a distancia. Se crearon curvas de Kaplan-Meier (prueba de rango logarítmico) para comparar los resultados de supervivencia. El análisis se realizó utilizando el tiempo cero como último día de radioterapia (1) o como fecha de resección de rescate (2) en el grupo de recrecimiento local.RESULTADOS:Veintiuno de 79 pacientes con recrecimiento local desarrollaron metástasis a distancia, mientras que solo 10 de 74 después de una cirugía sencilla (p = 0,04). El recrecimiento local y la patología final (ypT3-4) fueron los únicos factores de riesgo independientes asociados con las metástasis a distancia. Cuando se utilizó la fecha de la resección de rescate como tiempo cero, las tasas de supervivencia sin metástasis a distancia fueron significativamente inferiores para los pacientes con recrecimiento local (70 frente a 86 %; p = 0,01).LIMITACIONES:Pequeño número de pacientes, muchas terapias neoadyuvantes, sesgo de selección.CONCLUSIONES:Los pacientes sometidos a observación y espera que desarrollan un nuevo crecimiento local tienen un mayor riesgo de desarrollar metástasis a distancia en comparación con los pacientes con una respuesta patológica casi completa manejados con cirugía por adelantado después de la quimiorradiación. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).

TAilored SToma policY after TME for rectal cancer: The TASTY approach.

AIM: Diverting stomas are routinely used in restorative surgery following total mesorectal exicision (TME) for rectal cancer to mitigate the clinical risks of anastomotic leakage (AL). However, routine diverting stomas are associated with their own complication profile and may not be required in all patients. A tailored approach based on personalized risk of AL and selective use of diverting stoma may be more appropriate. The aim of the TAilored SToma policY (TASTY) project was to design and pilot a standardized, tailored approach to diverting stoma in low rectal cancer. METHOD: A mixed-methods approach was employed. Phase I externally validated the anastomotic failure observed risk score (AFORS). We compared the observed rate of AL in our cohort to the theoretical, predicted risk of the AFORS score. To identify the subset of patients who would benefit from early closure of the diverting stoma using C-reactive protein (CRP) we calculated the Youden index. Phase II designed the TASTY approach based on the results of Phase I. This was evaluated within a second prospective cohort study in patients undergoing TME for rectal cancer between April 2018 and April 2020. RESULTS: A total of 80 patients undergoing TME surgery for rectal cancer between 2016 and 2018 participated in the external validation of the AFORS score. The overall observed AL rate in this cohort of patients was 17.5% (n = 14). There was a positive correlation between the predicted and observed rates of AL using the AFORS score. Using ROC curves, we calculated a CRP cutoff value of 115 mg/L on postoperative day 2 for AL with a sensitivity of 86% and a negative predictive value of 96%. The TASTY approach was designed to allocate patients with a low risk AFORS score to primary anastomosis with no diverting stoma and high risk AFORS score patients to a diverting stoma, with early closure at 8-14 days, if CRP values and postoperative CT were satisfactory. The TASTY approach was piloted in 122 patients, 48 (39%) were identified as low risk (AFORS score 0-1) and 74 (61%) were considered as high risk (AFORS score 2-6). The AL rate was 10% in the low-risk cohort of patient compared to 23% in the high-risk cohort of patients, p = 0.078 The grade of Clavien-Dindo morbidity was equivalent. The incidence of major LARS was lowest in the no stoma cohort at 3 months (p = 0.014). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the feasibility and safety of employing a selective approach to diverting stoma in patients with a low anastomosis following TME surgery for rectal cancer.

Omentoplasty versus cecal mobilization after abdominoperineal resection: A propensity score matching analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite the minimally invasive approach and early rehabilitation, abdominal-perineal resection (APR) remains a procedure with high morbidity, notably due to postoperative trapped bowel ileus and perineal healing complications. Several surgical techniques have been described for filling the pelvic void to prevent abscess formation and ileus by trapped bowel loop. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to compare the post APR complications for cancer of two of these techniques, omentoplasty and cecal mobilization, in a single-center study from an expert colorectal surgery center. PATIENTS: From 2012 to 2022, 84 patients were included, including 58 (69%) with omentoplasty and 26 (31%) with cecal mobilization. They all underwent APR at Bordeaux University Hospital Center. SETTINGS: A propensity score was used to avoid confounding factors as far as possible. Patient and procedure characteristics were initially comparable. RESULTS: The 30-day complication rate was significantly higher in the cecal mobilization group (53.8% vs. 5.2% p < 0.01), as was the rate of pelvic abscess (34.6% vs. 0% p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that, when feasible, omentoplasty should be considered the preferred method for pelvic reconstruction following APR.

An International Multicenter Prospective Study Evaluating the Long-term Oncological Impact of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in ypN+ Rectal Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the oncological benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) in node positive (ypN+) rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and radical surgery. BACKGROUND: The evidence for AC after total mesorectal excision for locally advanced rectal cancer is conflicting and the net survival benefit is debated. METHODS: An international multicenter comparative cohort study was performed comparing oncological outcomes in tertiary rectal cancer centers from the Netherlands and France. Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision surgery and with positive lymph nodes on histologic examination (ypN+) were included for analysis. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to compare disease-free (DFS) and overall survival in AC and non-AC groups. RESULTS: Of 1265 patients screened, a total of 239 rectal cancer patients with ypN+ disease were included. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar in both groups. Higher systemic recurrence rates were observed in the non-AC group compared with those who received AC [32.0% (n=40) vs 17.5% (n=11), respectively, P =0.034]. DFS at 1 and 5 years postoperatively were significantly better in the AC group (92% vs 80% at 1 year; 72% vs 51% at 5 years, P =0.024), whereas no difference in overall survival was observed. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter comparative cohort study, we identified an oncological benefit of AC in both systemic recurrence and DFS in ypN+ rectal cancer patients. From this data, systemic chemotherapy continues to confer oncological benefit in locally advanced ypN+ rectal cancer.

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 Crying Need for a Better Response Assessment in Rectal Cancer.

OPINION STATEMENT: Since total neoadjuvant treatment achieves almost 30% pathologic complete response, organ preservation has been increasingly debated for good responders after neoadjuvant treatment for patients diagnosed with rectal cancer. Two organ preservation strategies are available: a watch and wait strategy and a local excision strategy including patients with a near clinical complete response. A major issue is the selection of patients according to the initial tumor staging or the response assessment. Despite modern imaging improvement, identifying complete response remains challenging. A better selection could be possible by radiomics analyses, exploiting numerous image features to feed data characterization algorithms. The subsequent step is to include baseline and/or pre-therapeutic MRI, PET-CT, and CT radiomics added to the patients' clinicopathological data, inside machine learning (ML) prediction models, with predictive or prognostic purposes. These models could be further improved by the addition of new biomarkers such as circulating tumor biomarkers, molecular profiling, or pathological immune biomarkers.

IDEAL Stage 2a/b prospective cohort study of transanal transection and single-stapled anastomosis for rectal cancer.

AIM: There are several anastomotic techniques available to facilitate restorative rectal cancer surgery after total mesorectal excision (TME), including double-stapled anastomosis (DST) and handsewn coloanal anastomosis (CAA). However, to date no one technique is superior with regard to anastomotic leakage (AL) or functional outcomes. Transanal transection single-stapled anastomosis (TTSS) aims to overcome some of the technical challenges and offer comparable clinical and functional outcomes to traditional anastomotic techniques. The aim of this study was to explore the role of TTSS in modern rectal cancer surgery and to provide comparative clinical and functional outcome data with DST and CAA. METHOD: A prospective cohort study was undertaken to assess the safety and clinical and patient-reported outcomes associated with the TTSS procedure. All patients undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer with an anastomosis performed within 6 cm of the anal verge between January 2016 and April 2021 were prospectively enrolled into this study. Clinical and patient-reported outcome data, including low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) assessment, were collected. The primary endpoint was anastomotic leakage within 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 275 patients participated in this study, with 70 (25%) patients undergoing a TTSS, 110 (40%) undergoing a DST and 95 (35%) undergoing a CAA. Patients undergoing a CAA had more distal tumours than those having a TTSS or DST, with a median tumour height of 5, 7 and 9 cm (p < 0.001), respectively. We observed a statistically significant reduction in AL in the TTSS group compared with the DST group, with rates of 8.6% versus 20.9% (p = 0.028). There was no difference in LARS scores between patients undergoing TTSS and DST (p = 0.228), while patients with a CAA had worse LARS scores than TTSS patients (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: TTSS is a technically safe and feasible anastomotic technique in rectal cancer surgery as an alternative to DST and CAA. Its advantages over DST are a reduced AL rate and, over CAA, improved function. It should therefore be considered as an alternative technique to improve clinical and patient-reported outcomes in restorative rectal cancer surgery.

Comparison between preoperative chemoradiotherapy and lateral pelvic lymph node dissection in clinical T3 low rectal cancer without enlarged lateral lymph nodes.

AIM: The standard strategy for clinical T3 rectal cancer without enlarged lateral lymph nodes is preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) in Western countries and TME with bilateral lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLND) in Japan. This study compared surgical, pathological and oncological results of these two strategies. METHOD: Patients who underwent preoperative CRT followed by TME in France (CRT + TME group) and those who underwent TME with LPLND in Japan (TME + LPLND group) for clinical T3 rectal adenocarcinoma without enlarged lateral lymph nodes from 2010 to 2016 were retrospectively analysed. RESULTS: In total, 439 patients were included in this study. The estimated local recurrence rate (LRR), disease-free survival and overall survival at 5 years post-surgery was 4.9%, 71% and 82% in the CRT + TME group, and 8.6%, 75% and 90% in the TME + LPLND group, respectively. Lateral LRR versus non-lateral LRR was 0.5% versus 4.2% in the CRT + TME group and 1.8% versus 6.2% in the TME + LPLND group. Obturator nerve injury and isolated pelvic abscess were shown only in the TME + LPLND group. Urinary complications were more frequent in the TME + LPLND group than in the CRT + TME group. CONCLUSION: Disease-free survival was not significantly different after TME with LPLND and after CRT followed by TME. LRR was not significantly different after both strategies; however, there was a trend for higher LRR after TME with LPLND than after CRT followed by TME. Obturator nerve injury, isolated lateral pelvic abscess and urinary complications should be noted when TME with LPLND is applied.

Low-impact laparoscopy in colorectal resection-A multicentric randomised trial comparing low-pressure pneumoperitoneum plus microsurgery versus low-pressure pneumoperitoneum alone: The PAROS II trial.

INTRODUCTION: Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum (LLP) in laparoscopy colorectal surgery (CS) has resulted in reduced hospital stay and lower analgesic consumption. Microsurgery (MS) in CS is a technique that has a significant impact with respect to postoperative pain. The combination of MS plus LLP, known as low-impact laparoscopy (LIL), has never been applied in CS. Therefore, this trial will assess the efficacy of LLP plus MS versus LLP alone in terms of decreasing postoperative pain 24 h after surgery, without taking opioids. METHOD: PAROS II will be a prospective, multicentre, outcome assessor-blinded, randomised controlled phase III clinical trial that compares LLP plus MS versus LLP alone in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for colonic or upper rectal cancer or benign pathology. The primary outcome will be the number of patients with postoperative pain 24 h after the surgery, as defined by a visual analogue scale rating ≤3 and without taking opioids. Overall, PAROS II aims to recruit 148 patients for 50% of patients to reach the primary outcome in the LLP plus MS arm, with 80% power and an 5% alpha risk. CONCLUSION: The PAROS II trial will be the first phase III trial to investigate the impact of LIL, including LLP plus MS, in laparoscopic CS. The results may improve the postoperative recovery experience and decrease opioid consumption after laparoscopic CS.

International standardization and optimization group for intersphincteric resection (ISOG-ISR): modified Delphi consensus on anatomy, definition, indication, surgical technique, specimen description and functional outcome.

AIM: Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is an oncologically complex operation for very low-lying rectal cancers. Yet, definition, anatomical description, operative indications and operative approaches to ISR are not standardized. The aim of this study was to standardize the definition of ISR by reaching international consensus from the experts in the field. This standardization will allow meaningful comparison in the literature in the future. METHOD: A modified Delphi approach with three rounds of questionnaire was adopted. A total of 29 international experts from 11 countries were recruited for this study. Six domains with a total of 37 statements were examined, including anatomical definition; definition of intersphincteric dissection, intersphincteric resection (ISR) and ultra-low anterior resection (uLAR); indication for ISR; surgical technique of ISR; specimen description of ISR; and functional outcome assessment protocol. RESULTS: Three rounds of questionnaire were performed (response rate 100%, 89.6%, 89.6%). Agreement (≥80%) reached standardization on 36 statements. CONCLUSION: This study provides an international expert consensus-based definition and standardization of ISR. This is the first study standardizing terminology and definition of deep pelvis/anal canal anatomy from a surgical point of view. Intersphincteric dissection, ISR and uLAR were specifically defined for precise surgical description. Indication for ISR was determined by the rectal tumour's maximal radial infiltration (T stage) below the levator ani. A new surgical definition of T3isp was reached by consensus to define T3 low rectal tumours infiltrating the intersphincteric plane. A practical flowchart for surgical indication for uLAR/ISR/abdominoperineal resection was developed. A standardized ISR surgical technique and functional outcome assessment protocol was defined.

Organ preservation in rectal cancer: review of contemporary management.

BACKGROUND: Organ preservation as a successful management for rectal cancer is an evolving field. Refinement of neoadjuvant therapies and extended interval to response assessment has improved tumour downstaging and cCR rates. METHODS: This was a narrative review of the current evidence for all aspects of organ preservation in rectal cancer management, together with a review of the future direction of this field. RESULTS: Patients can be selected for organ preservation opportunistically, based on an unexpectedly good tumour response, or selectively, based on baseline tumour characteristics that predict organ preservation as a viable treatment strategy. Escalation in oncological therapy and increasing the time interval from completion of neaodjuvant therapy to tumour assessment may further increase tumour downstaging and complete response rates. The addition of local excision to oncological therapy can further improve organ preservation rates. Cancer outcomes in organ preservation are comparable to those of total mesorectal excision, with low regrowth rates reported in patients who achieve a complete response to neoadjuvant therapy. Successful organ preservation aims to achieve non-inferior oncological outcomes together with improved functionality and survivorship. Future research should establish consensus of follow-up protocols, and define criteria for oncological and functional success to facilitate patient-centred decision-making. CONCLUSION: Modern neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer and increasing the interval to tumour response increases the number of patients who can be managed successfully with organ preservation in rectal cancer, both as an opportunistic event and as a planned treatment strategy.

Tailored Strategy for Locally Advanced Rectal Carcinoma (GRECCAR 4): Long-term Results From a Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label, Phase II Trial.

BACKGROUND: Systematic preoperative radiochemotherapy and total mesorectal excision are the standard of care for locally advanced rectal carcinoma. Some patients can be over- or undertreated. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the long-term oncological, functional, and late morbidity outcomes after tailored radiochemotherapy and induction high-dose chemotherapy. DESIGN: This is a prospective, phase II, multicenter, open-label study at 16 tertiary centers in France. SETTINGS: Patients were operated on by surgeons from the French GRECCAR group. PATIENTS: Two hundred six patients were randomly assigned to treatment: good responders after chemotherapy (≥75% tumor volume reduction) to immediate surgery (arm A) or standard radiochemotherapy (capecitabine 50) plus surgery (arm B) and poor responders to capecitabine 50 (arm C) or intensive radiochemotherapy (capecitabine 60; 60 Gy irradiation; arm D) before surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Treatment was tailored according to MRI response to induction chemotherapy. RESULTS: After induction treatment, 194 patients were classified as good (n = 30, 15%) or poor (n = 164, 85%) responders; they were included in arms A and B (16 and 14 patients) or C and D (113 and 51 patients). The primary objective was obtained: R0 resection rates (90% CI) in the 4 arms were 100% (74-100), 100% (85-100), 83% (72-91), and 88% (77-95). At 5 years, overall survival rates were 90% (47.3-98.5), 93.3% (61.3-99.0), 84.3% (71.0-91.8), and 86.1% (71.6-93.5); disease-free survival rates were 80% (40.9-94.6), 89.5% (64.1-97.3), 72.9% (58.5-82.9), and 72.8% (57.7-83.2); local recurrence rates were 0%, 0%, 2.1% (0.3-13.9), and 9.3% (3.6-23.0); and metastasis rates were 20% (5.4-59.1), 10.5% (2.7-35.9), 18% (31.8-94.6), and 18.8% (10.2-33.0). Late morbidity and quality-of-life evaluations showed no significant difference between arms. LIMITATIONS: Limitations were due to the small number of patients randomly assigned in the good responder arms, especially arm A without radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: Tailoring preoperative radiochemotherapy based on induction treatment response appears to be promising. Future prospective trials should confirm this strategy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B761 . REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Identifier: NCT01333709. ESTRATEGIA HECHA A MEDIDA PARA EL TRATAMIENTO DEL CARCINOMA DE RECTO LOCALMENTE AVANZADO GRECCAR RESULTADOS A LARGO PLAZO DE UN ESTUDIO ALEATRIO MULTICNTRICO Y ABIERTO DE FASE II: ANTECEDENTES:La radio-quimioterapia pré-operatoria sistemáticas y la excisión total del mesorrecto son el estándar en el tratamiento del carcinoma de recto localmente avanzado. En éste sentido, algunos pacientes podrían recibir un sobre o un infra-tratamiento.OBJETIVO:Evaluar los resultados oncológicos, funcionales y de morbilidad a largo plazo después de radio-quimioterapia personalizada y quimioterapia de inducción a dosis elevadas.DISEÑO:Estudio aleatório multicéntrico y abierto de Fase II° realizado en 16 centros terciarios en Francia.AJUSTE:Aquellos pacientes operados por cirujanos del grupo GRECCAR francés.PACIENTES:206 pacientes fueron asignados aleatoriamente al tratamiento: los buenos respondedores después de quimioterapia (reducción del volumen tumoral ≥75%) a la cirugía inmediata (brazo A) o a la radio-quimioterapia estándar (Cap 50) asociada a la cirugía (brazo B); los malos respondedores a Cap 50 (brazo C) o a la radio-quimioterapia intensiva (Cap 60 (irradiación de 60 Gy) (brazo D) previas a la cirugía.INTERVENCIONES:Tratamiento adaptado según la respuesta de la RM a la TC de inducción.RESULTADOS:Después del tratamiento de inducción, 194 pacientes fueron clasificados como buenos (n = 30, 15%) o malos (n = 164, 85%) respondedores, y se incluyeron en los brazos A y B (16 y 14 pacientes) o C y D (113 y 51 pacientes). Se alcanzó el objetivo principal: las tasas de resección R0 [intervalo de confianza del 90%] en los cuatro brazos respectivamente, fueron del 100% [74-100], 100% [85-100], 83% [72-91] y 88% [77-95]. A los 5 años, las tasas fueron: de sobrevida global 90% [47,3-98,5], 93,3% [61,3-99,0], 84,3% [71,0-91,8], 86,1% [71,6-93,5]; de sobrevida libre a la enfermedad 80% [40,9-94,6], 89,5% [64,1-97,3], 72,9% [58,5-82,9], 72,8% [57,7-83,2]; de recidiva local 0, 0, 2,1% [0,3-13,9], 9,3% [3,6-23,0]; de metástasis 20% [5,4-59,1], 10,5% [2,7-35,9], 18% [31,8-94,6], 18,8% [10,2-33,0]. La evaluación tardía de la morbilidad y la calidad de vida no mostraron diferencias significativas entre los brazos.LIMITACIONES:Debido al pequeño número de pacientes asignados al azar en los brazos de buenos respondedores, especialmente en el brazo A de aquellos sin radioterapia.CONCLUSIÓN:Parecería muy prometedor el adaptar la radio-quimioterapia pré-operatoria basada en la respuesta al tratamiento de inducción. Estudios prospectivos en el futuro podrán confirmar la presente estrategia. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B761 . (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo )IDENTIFICADOR DE CLINICALTRIALS.GOV:NCT01333709. Groupe de REcherche Chirurgicale sur le CAncer du Rectum.

A multicentre, prospective cohort study of handsewn versus stapled intracorporeal anastomosis for robotic hemicolectomy.

AIM: Robotic right hemicolectomy is gaining in popularity due to the recognized technical benefits associated with the robotic platform. However, there is a lack of standardization regarding the optimal anastomotic technique in this cohort of patients, namely stapled or handsewn intra- or extra-corporeal anastomosis. The ergonomic benefit associated with the robotic platform lends itself to intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA). The aim of this study was to compare the short-term clinical outcomes of stapled versus handsewn ICA. METHOD: A multicentre prospective cohort study was undertaken across four high-volume robotic centres in France between September 2018 and December 2020. All adult patients undergoing an elective robotic right hemicolectomy with an ICA performed and a minimum postoperative follow-up of 30 days were included. The primary endpoint of our study was anastomotic leak within 30 days postoperatively. RESULTS: A total of 144 patients underwent robotic right hemicolectomy: 92 (63.8%) had a stapled ICA and 52 (36.1%) a handsewn ICA. The operative indication was adenocarcinoma in 90% with a stapled ICA compared with 62% in the handsewn ICA group (p < 0.001). The overall operating time was longer in the handsewn ICA group compared with the stapled ICA group (219 min vs. 193 min; p = 0.001). The anastomotic leak rate was 3.3% in stapled ICA and 3.8% in handsewn ICA (p = 1.00). There was no difference in the rate or severity of postoperative morbidity. CONCLUSION: ICA robotic hemicolectomy is technically safe and is associated with low rates of anastomotic leak overall and equivalent clinical outcomes between the two techniques.

Is it safe to perform an anastomosis for rectal cancer after prostate cancer? A multicentre study of 126 patients from the GRECCAR group.

AIM: To determine the safety of performing an anastomosis after rectal cancer (RC) resection in patients with a previously treated prostate cancer (PC). METHODS: Patients with a previously treated PC who underwent rectal resection from 2008 to 2018 were retrospectively included. Outcomes were compared between patients who underwent rectal resection with anastomosis (restorative surgery, RS+ group) and those with a definitive stoma (RS- group). In the RS+ group, anastomotic leak (AL) rates were assessed according to the type of reconstruction. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients underwent rectal surgery for mid-low RC after a previous PC treated by radiotherapy (RT) and/or radical prostatectomy. Overall, 80 patients (63%) underwent a RS and 46 patients (37%) underwent rectal surgery with a definitive stoma. There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of intraoperative data, except for the type of resection with more multivisceral resection in the RS- group (p < 0.01). In the RS+group, a diverting stoma was performed in 74% of cases. No difference between the two groups in terms of overall morbidity was found. In the RS+group (n = 80), 17 patients (21%) experienced AL. Of these, none was observed when delayed coloanal anastomosis was performed (p = 0.16). Long-term permanent stoma in the RS+ group was 16% (n = 13). CONCLUSION: Restorative surgery after resection for RC in patients with a previous history of RT and/or radical prostatectomy for PC is safe without additional morbidity. In selected patients for restorative surgery, performing delayed coloanal anastomosis may represent a promising option.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX and preoperative chemoradiotherapy for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (UNICANCER-PRODIGE 23): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer with chemoradiotherapy, surgery, and adjuvant chemotherapy controls local disease, but distant metastases remain common. We aimed to assess whether administering neoadjuvant chemotherapy before preoperative chemoradiotherapy could reduce the risk of distant recurrences. METHODS: We did a phase 3, open-label, multicentre, randomised trial at 35 hospitals in France. Eligible patients were adults aged 18-75 years and had newly diagnosed, biopsy-proven, rectal adenocarcinoma staged cT3 or cT4 M0, with a WHO performance status of 0-1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group or standard-of-care group, using an independent web-based system by minimisation method stratified by centre, extramural extension of the tumour into perirectal fat according to MRI, tumour location, and stage. Investigators and participants were not masked to treatment allocation. The neoadjuvant chemotherapy group received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, irinotecan 180 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 intravenously every 14 days for 6 cycles), chemoradiotherapy (50 Gy during 5 weeks and 800 mg/m2 concurrent oral capecitabine twice daily for 5 days per week), total mesorectal excision, and adjuvant chemotherapy (3 months of modified FOLFOX6 [intravenous oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 and leucovorin 400 mg/m2, followed by intravenous 400 mg/m2 fluorouracil bolus and then continuous infusion at a dose of 2400 mg/m2 over 46 h every 14 days for six cycles] or capecitabine [1250 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days 1-14 every 21 days]). The standard-of-care group received chemoradiotherapy, total mesorectal excision, and adjuvant chemotherapy (for 6 months). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population at 3 years. Safety analyses were done on treated patients. This trial was registered with EudraCT (2011-004406-25) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01804790) and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between June 5, 2012, and June 26, 2017, 461 patients were randomly assigned to either the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group (n=231) or the standard-of-care group (n=230). At a median follow-up of 46·5 months (IQR 35·4-61·6), 3-year disease-free survival rates were 76% (95% CI 69-81) in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group and 69% (62-74) in the standard-of-care group (stratified hazard ratio 0·69, 95% CI 0·49-0·97; p=0·034). During neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (38 [17%] of 225 patients) and diarrhoea (25 [11%] of 226). During chemoradiotherapy, the most common grade 3-4 adverse event was lymphopenia (59 [28%] of 212 in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group vs 67 [30%] of 226 patients in the standard-of-care group). During adjuvant chemotherapy, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were lymphopenia (18 [11%] of 161 in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group vs 42 [27%] of 155 in the standard-of-care group), neutropenia (nine [6%] of 161 vs 28 [18%] of 155), and peripheral sensory neuropathy (19 [12%] of 162 vs 32 [21%] of 155). Serious adverse events occurred in 63 (27%) of 231 participants in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group and 50 (22%) of 230 patients in the standard-of-care group (p=0·167), during the whole treatment period. During adjuvant therapy, serious adverse events occurred in 18 (11%) of 163 participants in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group and 36 (23%) of 158 patients in the standard-of-care group (p=0·0049). Treatment-related deaths occurred in one (<1%) of 226 patients in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group (sudden death) and two (1%) of 227 patients in the standard-of-care group (one sudden death and one myocardial infarction). INTERPRETATION: Intensification of chemotherapy using FOLFIRINOX before preoperative chemoradiotherapy significantly improved outcomes compared with preoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with cT3 or cT4 M0 rectal cancer. The significantly improved disease-free survival in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group and the decreased neurotoxicity indicates that the perioperative approach is more efficient and better tolerated than adjuvant chemotherapy. Therefore, the PRODIGE 23 results might change clinical practice. FUNDING: Institut National du Cancer, Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, and R&D Unicancer.

Meta-analysis and Systematic Review of the Use of a Prosthetic Mesh for Prevention of Parastomal Hernia.

OBJECTIVE: The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was the PSH rate at 1 year of follow-up with or without the use of a mesh. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: European guidelines currently recommend the use of a mesh at the time of a stoma formation for the prevention of PSH. These recommendations are based on the RCT and meta-analyses published before 2017. More recently 2 large RCT found no benefit in the mesh group. We investigated whether these latest results could change the conclusion of a meta-analysis. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive literature search and analyzed RCT investigating the use of a mesh to prevent PSH formation. All studies including end colostomies were included in the qualitative analysis no matter the surgical technique or the type of mesh. All studies with a limited risk of bias and presenting with usable data were used in the quantitative analysis. RESULTS: There is a large heterogeneity among the studies, in terms of position of the mesh, surgical technique, and diagnostic method for the PSH.No statistically significant difference was found on the PSH rate at 1 or 2 years between the mesh and non-mesh groups. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this meta-analysis including the latest RCT on the prevention of PSH, the use of a mesh should not be recommended.

Surgical Management of Retrorectal Tumors: A French Multicentric Experience of 270 Consecutives Cases.

OBJECTIVE: To report the largest multicentric experience on surgical management of retrorectal tumors (RRT). BACKGROUND: Literature data on RRT is limited. There is no consensus concerning the best surgical approach for the management of RRT. METHODS: Patients operated for RRT in 18 academic French centers were retrospectively included (2000-2019). RESULTS: A total of 270 patients were included. Surgery was performed through abdominal (n = 72, 27%), bottom (n = 190, 70%), or combined approach (n = 8, 3%). Abdominal approach was laparoscopic in 53/72 (74%) and bottom approach was Kraske modified procedures in 169/190 (89%) patients. In laparoscopic abdominal group, tumors were more frequently symptomatic (37/53, 70% vs 88/169, 52%, P = 0.02), larger [mean diameter = 60.5 ± 24 (range, 13-107) vs 51 ± 26 (20-105) mm, P = 0.02] and located above S3 vertebra (n = 3/42, 7% vs 0%, P = 0.001) than those from Kraske modified group. Laparoscopy was associated with a higher risk of postoperative ileus (n = 4/53, 7.5% vs 0%, P = 0.002) and rectal fistula (n = 3/53, 6% vs 0%, P=0.01) but less wound abscess (n = 1/53, 2% vs 24/169, 14%, P = 0.02) than Kraske modified procedures. RRT was malignant in 8%. After a mean follow up of 27 ±39 (1-221) months, local recurrence was noted in 8% of the patients. After surgery, chronic pain was observed in 17% of the patients without significant difference between the 2 groups (15/74, 20% vs 3/30, 10%; P = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Both laparoscopic and Kraske modified approaches can be used for surgical treatment of RRT (according to their location and their size), with similar long-term results.

Local Recurrence After Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine local recurrence (LR) rate and pattern after transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer. BACKGROUND: TaTME for mid- and low rectal cancer has known a rapid and worldwide adoption. Recently, concerns have been raised on the oncological safety in light of reported high LR rates with a multifocal pattern. METHODS: This was a multicenter observational cohort study in 6 tertiary referral centers. All consecutive TaTME cases for primary rectal adenocarcinoma from the first TaTME case in every center until December 2018 were included for analysis. Patients with benign tumors, malignancies other than adenocarcinoma and recurrent rectal cancer, as well as exenterative procedures, were excluded. The primary endpoint was 2-year LR rate. Secondary endpoints included patterns and treatment of LR and histopathological characteristics of the primary surgery. RESULTS: A total of 767 patients were identified and eligible for analysis. Resection margins were involved in 8% and optimal pathological outcome (clear margins, (nearly) complete specimen, no perforation) was achieved in 86% of patients. After a median follow-up of 25.5 months, 24 patients developed LR, with an actuarial cumulative 2-year LR rate of 3% (95% CI 2-5). In none of the patients, a multifocal pattern of LR was observed. Thirteen patients had isolated LR (without systemic disease) and 10/13 could be managed by salvage surgery of whom 8 were disease-free at the end of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study shows good loco regional control after TaTME in selected cases from tertiary referral centers and does not indicate an inherent oncological risk of the surgical technique.

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.

Sphincter-saving surgery for ultra-low rectal carcinoma initially indicated for abdominoperineal resection: Is it safe on a long-term follow-up?

BACKGROUND: Rate of abdominoperineal resection (APR) varies from countries and surgeons. Surgical impact of preoperative treatment for ultra-low rectal carcinoma (ULRC) initially indicated for APR is debated. We report the 10-year oncological results from a prospective controlled trial (GRECCAR 1) which evaluate the sphincter saving surgery (SSR). METHODS: ULRC indicated for APR were included (n = 207). Randomization was between high-dose radiation (HDR, 45 + 18 Gy) and radiochemotherapy (RCT, 45 Gy + 5FU infusion). Surgical decision was based on tumour volume regression at surgery. SSR technique was standardized as mucosectomy (M) or partial (PISR)/complete (CISR) intersphincteric resection. RESULTS: Overall SSR rate was 85% (72% ISR), postoperative morbidity 27%, with no mortality. There were no significant differences between the HDR and RCT groups: 10-year overall survival (OS10) 70.1% versus 69.4%, respectively, 10.2% local recurrence (9.2%/14.5%) and 27.6% metastases (32.4%/27.7%). OS and disease-free survival were significantly longer for SSR (72.2% and 60.1%, respectively) versus APR (54.7% and 38.3%). No difference in OS10 between surgical approaches (M 78.9%, PISR 75.5%, CISR 65.5%) or tumour location (low 64.8%, ultralow 76.7%). CONCLUSION: GRECCAR 1 demonstrates the feasibility of safely changing an initial APR indication into an SSR procedure according to the preoperative treatment tumour response. Long-term oncologic follow-up validates this attitude.