Right-side colectomy with complete mesocolic excision vs conventional right-side colectomy in the treatment of colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis aims to investigate the role of complete mesocolic excision (CME) in the treatment of right-side colon cancer when compared with standard right-side hemicolectomy, focusing on oncological outcomes, mortality and morbidity rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed on MEDLINE and EMBASE archives, including studies on CME in right-side colon cancer. Primary outcomes were five-year disease-free survival and five-year overall survival. Secondary outcomes investigated were mortality and morbidity rates, intraoperative blood loss, anastomotic leakage, postoperative ileus, day of postoperative flatus, pulmonary infection, duration of hospital stay and number of lymph nodes harvested. RESULTS: Seventeen studies have been included in this meta-analysis for a total of 3918 patients. The five-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) results improved in the CME group with respect to conventional right-side colectomy with an OR 1.88 (95% CI 1.02-3.45) and OR 2.77 (95% CI 1.33-5.74), respectively. The incidence of mortality and morbidity was comparable between the two groups. Moreover, conventional surgery time was faster than CME (MD 33.69 min, 95% CI 12.79-54.59), while no significant differences were reported in mean blood loss and hospital stay. Furthermore, the CME group showed a higher mean number of harvested lymph nodes (MD 7.08 lymph nodes 95% CI 4.90-9.27). CONCLUSION: Complete mesocolic excision of the right-side colectomy improves oncological outcomes without increasing mortality and morbidity rates compared to standard right-side hemicolectomy. CME should therefore be routinely performed in the treatment of right-side colon cancer.

Case-matched analysis of robotic versus open surgical enucleation for pancreatic tumours: A comparative cost-effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Enucleation has widely spread as an alternative strategy in the treatment of small pancreatic tumours and cystic lesions. To date there are limited data on perioperative outcomes after pancreatic enucleation performed using a minimally invasive robotic technique, particularly regarding the risk factors associated with postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). We perform a comparative study of robotic pancreatic enucleation (RPE) and open enucleation (OPE) with the aim of evaluating clinical and cost-effective outcomes. METHODS: This is a case-matched analysis of patients who underwent robotic and open pancreatic enucleation performed at Sanchinarro University Hospital, Madrid, from October 2014 to December 2021. Patient data were obtained retrospectively. Clinicopathologic characteristics and perioperative and postoperative outcomes were recorded and analysed. Two groups of demographically similar patients were analysed: the robotic group (n = 20) and the open group (n = 20). The patient characteristics of the two groups have been compared. From February 2015, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) are also included and prospectively recorded in the database and used to measure the effectiveness of the treatment. RESULT: A total of 20 RPE and 20 OPE have been included. The incremental cost of the robotic approach versus open was €2617.85(CI 95% 1601.48; 3634.24) and the incremental utility was 0.0879 QALYs (CI 95% 0.0834; 0.0925). The estimated ICER for patients was €29,782.13 (CI 95% 17,313.29; 43,576.01) per QALY gained. Robotic resection resulted a shorter postoperative hospital stay, less wound infections, faster recovery diet and a similar operating time. The two groups had similar complication rates. Pathological data were similar for both procedures. CONCLUSION: RPE resulted in a shorter hospital stay and less blood loss and morbidity, comparable with the outcomes of open enucleation. RPE may also be acceptable in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Robotic-assisted right colectomy versus laparoscopic approach: case-matched study and cost-effectiveness analysis.

AIM: The aim of this study is to compare clinical and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted right colectomy with those of conventional laparoscopy-assisted right colectomy, reporting for the first time in literature, a cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: This is a case-matched prospective non-randomized study conducted from October 2013 to October 2017 at Sanchinarro University Hospital, Madrid. Patients with right-sided colonic adenocarcinoma or adenoma, not suitable endoscopic resection were treated with robot-assisted right colectomy and a propensity score-matched (1:1) was used to balance preoperative characteristics of a laparoscopic control group. Perioperative, postoperative, long-term oncological results and costs were analysed, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and the cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. The primary end point was to compare the cost-effectiveness differences between both groups. A willingness-to-pay of 20,000 and 30,000 per QALY was used as a threshold to recognize which treatment was most cost effective. RESULTS: Thirty-five robot-assisted right colectomies were included and a group of 35 laparoscopy-assisted right colectomy was selected. Compared with the laparoscopic group, the robotic group was associated with longer operation times (243 min vs. 179 min, p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed in terms of total costs between the robotic and laparoscopic groups (9455.14 vs 8227.50 respectively, p = 0.21). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000 and 30,000, there was a 78.78-95.04% probability that the robotic group was cost effective relative to laparoscopic group. CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted right colectomy is a safe and feasible technique and is a cost-effective procedure.

Role of 18F-PET-CT to predict pathological response after neoadjuvant treatment of rectal cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) is universally considered to be a valid treatment to achieve downstaging, to improve local disease control and to obtain better resectability in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). The aim of this study is to correlate the change in the tumour 18F-FDG PET-CT standardized uptake value (SUV) before and after nCRT, in order to obtain an early prediction of the pathologic response (pR) achieved in patients with LARC. DATA DESCRIPTION: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with LARC diagnosis who underwent curative resection. All patients underwent a baseline 18F-FDG PET-CT scan within the week prior to the initiation of the treatment (PET-CT SUV1) and a second scan (PET-CT SUV2) within 6 weeks of the completion of nCRT. We evaluated the prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET-CT in terms of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with LARC.A total of 133 patients with LARC were included in the study. Patients were divided in two groups according to the TRG (tumour regression grade): 107 (80%) as the responders group (TRG0-TRG1) and 26 (25%) as the no-responders group (TRG2-TRG3). We obtained a significant difference in Δ%SUV between the two different groups; responders versus no-responders (p < 0.012). The results of this analysis show that 18F-FDG PET-CT may be an indicator to evaluate the pR to nCRT in patients with LARC. The decrease in 18F-FDG PET-CT uptake in the primary tumour may offer important information in order for an early identification of those patients more likely to obtain a pCR to nCRT and to predict those who are unlikely to significantly regress.