Prospective derivation of a living organoid biobank of colorectal cancer patients.

In Rspondin-based 3D cultures, Lgr5 stem cells from multiple organs form ever-expanding epithelial organoids that retain their tissue identity. We report the establishment of tumor organoid cultures from 20 consecutive colorectal carcinoma (CRC) patients. For most, organoids were also generated from adjacent normal tissue. Organoids closely recapitulate several properties of the original tumor. The spectrum of genetic changes within the "living biobank" agrees well with previous large-scale mutational analyses of CRC. Gene expression analysis indicates that the major CRC molecular subtypes are represented. Tumor organoids are amenable to high-throughput drug screens allowing detection of gene-drug associations. As an example, a single organoid culture was exquisitely sensitive to Wnt secretion (porcupine) inhibitors and carried a mutation in the negative Wnt feedback regulator RNF43, rather than in APC. Organoid technology may fill the gap between cancer genetics and patient trials, complement cell-line- and xenograft-based drug studies, and allow personalized therapy design. PAPERCLIP.

Intra-tumour diversification in colorectal cancer at the single-cell level.

Every cancer originates from a single cell. During expansion of the neoplastic cell population, individual cells acquire genetic and phenotypic differences from each other. Here, to investigate the nature and extent of intra-tumour diversification, we characterized organoids derived from multiple single cells from three colorectal cancers as well as from adjacent normal intestinal crypts. Colorectal cancer cells showed extensive mutational diversification and carried several times more somatic mutations than normal colorectal cells. Most mutations were acquired during the final dominant clonal expansion of the cancer and resulted from mutational processes that are absent from normal colorectal cells. Intra-tumour diversification of DNA methylation and transcriptome states also occurred; these alterations were cell-autonomous, stable, and followed the phylogenetic tree of each cancer. There were marked differences in responses to anticancer drugs between even closely related cells of the same tumour. The results indicate that colorectal cancer cells experience substantial increases in somatic mutation rate compared to normal colorectal cells, and that genetic diversification of each cancer is accompanied by pervasive, stable and inherited differences in the biological states of individual cancer cells.

Patient- and physician-reported radiation-induced toxicity of short-course radiotherapy with a prolonged interval to surgery for rectal cancer.

AIM: A prolonged interval (>4 weeks) between short-course radiotherapy (25 Gy in five fractions) (SCRT-delay) and total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer has been associated with a decreased postoperative complication rate and offers the possibility of organ preservation in the case of a complete tumour response. This prospective cohort study systematically evaluated patient-reported bowel dysfunction and physician-reported radiation-induced toxicity for 8 weeks following SCRT-delay. METHOD: Patients who were referred for SCRT-delay for intermediate risk, oligometastatic or locally advanced rectal cancer were included. Repeated measurements were done for patient-reported bowel dysfunction (measured by the low anterior resection syndrome [LARS] questionnaire and categorized as no, minor or major LARS) and physician-reported radiation-induced toxicity (according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0) before start of treatment (baseline), at completion of SCRT and 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 weeks thereafter. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were included; 31 (61%) were men and the median age was 67 years (range 44-91). Patient-reported bowel dysfunction and physician-reported radiation-induced toxicity peaked at weeks 1-2 after completion of SCRT and gradually declined thereafter. Major LARS was reported by 44 patients (92%) at some time during SCRT-delay. Grade 3 radiation-induced toxicity was reported in 17 patients (33%) and concerned predominantly diarrhoea. No Grade 4-5 radiation-induced toxicity occurred. CONCLUSION: During SCRT-delay, almost every patient experiences temporary mild-moderate radiation-induced toxicity and major LARS, but life-threatening toxicity is rare. SCRT-delay is a safe alternative to SCRT-direct surgery that should be proposed when counselling rectal cancer patients on neoadjuvant strategies.

Impact of a diverting ileostomy in total mesorectal excision with primary anastomosis for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of diverting ileostomy in total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer with primary anastomosis is debated. The aim of this study is to gain insight in the clinical consequences of a diverting ileostomy, with respect to stoma rate at one year and stoma-related morbidity. METHODS: Patients undergoing TME with primary anastomosis for rectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 in eleven participating hospitals were included. Retrospectively, two groups were compared: patients with or without diverting ileostomy construction during primary surgery. Primary endpoint was stoma rate at one year. Secondary endpoints were severity and rate of anastomotic leakage, overall morbidity rate within thirty days and stoma (reversal) related morbidity. RESULTS: In 353 out of 595 patients (59.3%) a diverting ileostomy was constructed during primary surgery. Stoma rate at one year was 9.9% in the non-ileostomy group and 18.7% in the ileostomy group (p = 0.003). After correction for confounders, multivariate analysis showed that the construction of a diverting ileostomy during primary surgery was an independent risk factor for stoma at one year (OR 2.563 (95%CI 1.424-4.611), p = 0.002). Anastomotic leakage rate was 17.8% in the non-ileostomy group and 17.2% in the ileostomy group (p = 0.913). Overall 30-days morbidity rate was 37.6% in the non-ileostomy group and 56.1% in the ileostomy group (p < 0.001). Stoma reversal related morbidity rate was 17.9%. CONCLUSIONS: The stoma rate at one year was higher in patients with ileostomy construction during primary surgery. The incidence and severity of anastomotic leakage were not reduced by construction of an ileostomy. The morbidity related to the presence and reversal of a diverting ileostomy was substantial.

Robot-Assisted Total Mesorectal Excision Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision: A Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Analysis in Experienced Centers.

BACKGROUND: The superiority of robot-assisted over laparoscopic total mesorectal excision has not been proven. Most studies do not consider the learning curve while comparing the surgical technique. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare laparoscopic with robot-assisted total mesorectal excision performed by surgeons who completed the learning curve of the technique. DESIGN: This is a multicenter retrospective propensity score-matched analysis. SETTINGS: The study was performed in 2 large, dedicated robot-assisted hospitals and 5 large, dedicated laparoscopic hospitals. PATIENTS: Patients were included if they underwent a robot-assisted or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer with curative intent at a dedicated center for the minimally invasive technique between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017. INTERVENTIONS: We compared robot-assisted with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was conversion to laparotomy during surgery. Secondary outcomes were postoperative morbidity and positive circumferential resection margin. RESULTS: A total of 884 patients were included and, after matching, 315 patients per treatment group remained. Conversion was similar between laparoscopic and robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (4.4% vs 2.5% (p = 0.20)). Positive circumferential resection margin was equal (3.2% vs 4.4% (p = 0.41)). Overall morbidity was comparable as well, although a lower rate of wound infections was observed in the robot-assisted group (5.7% vs 1.9% (p = 0.01)). More primary anastomoses were constructed in the robot-assisted group (50.8% vs 68.3% (p < 0.001)). Finally, more open procedures were performed in dedicated laparoscopic centers, with an overrepresentation of cT4N+ tumors in this group. LIMITATIONS: This is a retrospective multicenter cohort; however, propensity score matching was applied to control for confounding by indication. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision are equally safe in terms of short-term outcomes. However, with the robot-assisted approach, more primary anastomoses were constructed, and a lower wound infection rate was observed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B677.ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL ASISTIDA POR ROBOT VERSUS ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL LAPAROSCÓPICA: UNA PUNTUACIÓN DE PROPENSIÓN RETROSPECTIVA ANÁLISIS DE COHORTES EMPAREJADAS EN CENTROS EXPERIMENTADOS. ANTECEDENTES: No se ha demostrado la superioridad de la escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot sobre la laparoscópica. La mayoría de los estudios no tienen en cuenta la curva de aprendizaje al comparar la técnica quirúrgica. OBJETIVO: Este estudio tiene como objetivo comparar la escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica con la asistida por robot realizada por cirujanos que completaron la curva de aprendizaje de la técnica. DISEO: Este es un análisis multicéntrico retrospectivo emparejado por puntuación de propensión. AJUSTES: El estudio se realizó en dos grandes hospitales dedicados asistidos por robots y cinco grandes hospitales laparoscópicos dedicados. PACIENTES: Se incluyeron pacientes que se sometieron a escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot o laparoscópica para cáncer de recto con intención curativa, en un centro dedicado a la técnica mínimamente invasiva entre el 1 de enero de 2015 y el 31 de diciembre de 2017. INTERVENCIONES: Comparamos la escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot con la laparoscópica. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: El principal resultado fue la conversión a laparotomía durante la cirugía. Los resultados secundarios fueron la morbilidad posoperatoria y el margen circunferencial positivo. RESULTADOS: Se incluyó a un total de 884 pacientes y, después de emparejar, quedaron 315 pacientes por grupo de tratamiento. La conversión fue similar entre la escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica y asistida por robot (4,4% frente a 2,5% [p = 0,20]). El margen de resección circunferencial positivo fue igual (3,2% vs 4,4% [p = 0,41]). La morbilidad general también fue comparable, aunque se observó una menor tasa de infecciones de heridas en el grupo asistido por robot (5,7% frente a 1,9% [p = 0,01]). Se construyeron más anastomosis primarias en el grupo asistido por robot (50,8% frente a 68,3% [p < 0,001]). Finalmente, se realizaron procedimientos más abiertos en centros laparoscópicos dedicados, con una sobrerrepresentación de tumores cT4N + en este grupo. LIMITACIONES: Ésta es una cohorte multicéntrica retrospectiva; sin embargo, se aplicó el emparejamiento por puntuación de propensión para controlar los factores de confusión por indicación. CONCLUSIONES: La escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot y laparoscópica son igualmente seguras en términos de resultados a corto plazo. Sin embargo, con el abordaje asistido por robot, se construyeron más anastomosis primarias y se observó una menor tasa de infección de la herida. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B677. (Traducción-Dr. Gonzalo Hagerman).

Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) versus endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for resection of non-pedunculated rectal lesions (TRIASSIC study): study protocol of a European multicenter randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In the recent years two innovative approaches have become available for minimally invasive en bloc resections of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions (polyps and early cancers). One is Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS), the other is Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD). Both techniques are standard of care, but a direct randomised comparison is lacking. The choice between either of these procedures is dependent on local expertise or availability rather than evidence-based. The European Society for Endoscopy has recommended that a comparison between ESD and local surgical resection is needed to guide decision making for the optimal approach for the removal of large rectal lesions in Western countries. The aim of this study is to directly compare both procedures in a randomised setting with regard to effectiveness, safety and perceived patient burden. METHODS: Multicenter randomised trial in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with non-pedunculated lesions > 2 cm, where the bulk of the lesion is below 15 cm from the anal verge, will be randomised between either a TAMIS or an ESD procedure. Lesions judged to be deeply invasive by an expert panel will be excluded. The primary endpoint is the cumulative local recurrence rate at follow-up rectoscopy at 12 months. Secondary endpoints are: 1) Radical (R0-) resection rate; 2) Perceived burden and quality of life; 3) Cost effectiveness at 12 months; 4) Surgical referral rate at 12 months; 5) Complication rate; 6) Local recurrence rate at 6 months. For this non-inferiority trial, the total sample size of 198 is based on an expected local recurrence rate of 3% in the ESD group, 6% in the TAMIS group and considering a difference of less than 6% to be non-inferior. DISCUSSION: This is the first European randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and safety of TAMIS and ESD for the en bloc resection of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions. This is important as the detection rate of these adenomas is expected to further increase with the introduction of colorectal screening programs throughout Europe. This study will therefore support an optimal use of healthcare resources in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, NL7083 , 06 July 2018.

Physical performance measures for predicting outcome in cancer patients: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Decision making regarding cancer treatment is challenging and there is a need for clinical parameters that can guide these decisions. As physical performance appears to be a reflection of health status, the aim of this systematic review is to assess whether physical performance tests (PPTs) are predictive of the clinical outcome and treatment tolerance in cancer patients. METHODS: A literature search was conducted on 2 April 2015 in the electronic databases Medline and Embase to identify studies focusing on the association between objectively measured PPTs and outcome. No limitations in language or publication dates were applied. RESULTS: The search retrieved 9680 articles, 16 publications were included involving 4187 patients with various cancer types and different treatments. Reported median or mean age varied from 58 to 78 years. Nine studies used the Timed Up & Go (TUG) test, five the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and five studies focused on gait speed. Poorer TUG, SPPB and gait speed outcome were associated with decreased survival. TUG, SPPB and gait speed were also associated with treatment-related complications. Furthermore, two studies reported an association between poorer TUG and SPPB outcome with higher rates of functional decline. CONCLUSION: PPTs appear to show a significant correlation with survival and these tests could be used as a prognostic tool, particular for older adult patients. A less explicit correlation for treatment-related complications and functional decline was also found. To optimize decision making, future research should focus on developing and validating individualized treatment algorithms that incorporate PPTs in addition to cancer- and treatment-related variables.

Age-related guideline adherence and outcome in low rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Care for elderly patients with low rectal cancer can pose dilemmas, because radical total mesorectal excision surgery comes with high morbidity and mortality rates. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the treatment of patients with low rectal cancer, comparing treatment choices, guideline adherence, and outcomes for elderly patients (≥75 years) with younger patients (<75 years). DESIGN: Patient data were retrieved from the hospital pathology database and from the hospital prospective colorectal surgery database for surgically treated patients. Records were reviewed for nonadherence to treatment guidelines. Delivered treatment modalities for patients with stage I to III rectal cancer were compared with treatment advised by national guidelines, and reasons stated by the treating physician for nonadherence to guidelines were subsequently collected. SETTINGS: This study was performed at a high-volume teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Patients included were those with newly diagnosed rectal cancer (≤10 cm from the anal verge). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Treatment decisions, guideline adherence, and outcome of surgical treatment were the main outcome parameters. RESULTS: Of 218 included patients, 75 (34%) were aged ≥75 years. Guideline adherence for all of the treatment modalities in stage I to III rectal cancer was significantly lower in elderly patients (62% versus 87% for aged <75 years; p < 0.001), and age was the primary reason mentioned for withholding treatment. Palliative anticancer treatment for stage IV disease was also initiated significantly less frequently in elderly patients (60% versus 97%; p = 0.002). Overall rates of treatment complications were similar for both patient groups (p = 0.71), but the impact of complications on survival was much greater for elderly patients (p = 0.002). LIMITATIONS: Data on outcome of other treatment modalities, such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy, are lacking. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline adherence for all of the treatment modalities in stage I to III rectal cancer declines significantly with increasing age. Future research should focus on strategies of treatment tailored to patient health status rather than chronological age.

Transanal minimally invasive surgery: initial experience and short-term functional results.

BACKGROUND: Currently, the preferred method for local excision of rectal polyps is transanal endoscopic microsurgery, avoiding rectal resection. Transanal minimally invasive surgery is a relatively new technique using a disposable port in combination with conventional laparoscopic instruments. This method is less expensive as compared with transanal endoscopic microsurgery, relatively easy to learn, and available. Despite wide adoption of transanal minimally invasive surgery, to date only a few series on the implementation and use of this technique are reported, and detailed information on the effect of transanal minimally invasive surgery on fecal continence is not available. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this work was to prospectively assess the functional outcome after transanal minimally invasive surgery using the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index preoperatively and postoperatively. DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a large teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Patients included those who underwent transanal minimally invasive surgery between October 2011 and September 2013. INTERVENTIONS: Transanal minimally invasive surgery was studied. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We measured postoperative surgical and functional results. RESULTS: A total of 37 patients underwent transanal minimally invasive surgery during our study period. Short-term morbidity rate was 14%, and positive resection margins were reported in 6 cases (16%); in 1 of these patients, a local recurrence was observed. Overall, there was a significant decline in preoperative and postoperative Fecal Incontinence Severity Index scores (p = 0.02), indicating an improvement in anorectal function after transanal minimally invasive surgery for patients with impaired preoperative continence. Seventeen patients (49%) had impaired continence before transanal minimally invasive surgery (mean Fecal Incontinence Severity Index score = 21). Continence improved in 15 (88%) of these patients after surgery; no change was observed in 1 patient (6%), and continence further decreased in another. In addition, 18 patients (51%) had normal preoperative continence (Fecal Incontinence Severity Index score = 0), of which 83% had no change in functionality, and continence decreased in 3. LIMITATIONS: No quality of life was measured. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term functional results of transanal minimally invasive surgery for rectal polyps are excellent and comparable to functional results using the dedicated transanal endoscopic microsurgery equipment. More research on outcome after transanal minimally invasive surgery is needed to assess morbidity rates and oncologic clearance.

Total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined low rectal cancer: multicentre study comparing oncological outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic and transanal total mesorectal excision in high-volume centres.

BACKGROUND: The routine use of MRI in rectal cancer treatment allows the use of a strict definition for low rectal cancer. This study aimed to compare minimally invasive total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined low rectal cancer in expert laparoscopic, transanal and robotic high-volume centres. METHODS: All MRI-defined low rectal cancer operated on between 2015 and 2017 in 11 Dutch centres were included. Primary outcomes were: R1 rate, total mesorectal excision quality and 3-year local recurrence and survivals (overall and disease free). Secondary outcomes included conversion rate, complications and whether there was a perioperative change in the preoperative treatment plan. RESULTS: Of 1071 eligible rectal cancers, 633 patients with low rectal cancer were identified. Quality of the total mesorectal excision specimen (P = 0.337), R1 rate (P = 0.107), conversion (P = 0.344), anastomotic leakage rate (P = 0.942), local recurrence (P = 0.809), overall survival (P = 0.436) and disease-free survival (P = 0.347) were comparable among the centres. The laparoscopic centre group had the highest rate of perioperative change in the preoperative treatment plan (10.4%), compared with robotic expert centres (5.2%) and transanal centres (2.1%), P = 0.004. The main reason for this change was stapling difficulty (43%), followed by low tumour location (29%). Multivariable analysis showed that laparoscopic surgery was the only independent risk factor for a change in the preoperative planned procedure, P = 0.024. CONCLUSION: Centres with expertise in all three minimally invasive total mesorectal excision techniques can achieve good oncological resection in the treatment of MRI-defined low rectal cancer. However, compared with robotic expert centres and transanal centres, patients treated in laparoscopic centres have an increased risk of a change in the preoperative intended procedure due to technical limitations.

Postoperative outcomes of surgical delay in inflammatory bowel disease patients: a multicenter cohort study.

Postponement of surgical inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) care may lead to disease progression. This study aims to determine the influence of delayed surgical IBD procedures on clinical outcomes. This multicenter retrospective cohort study included IBD patients who underwent a surgical procedure during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic from March 16, 2020, to December 31, 2020, and were compared to a pre-COVID-19 cohort. The primary endpoint was determining the number of (major) postoperative complications. Secondary endpoints were the time interval between surgical indication and performance of the surgical procedure and the risk factors of postoperative complications using multivariate analysis. Eighty-one IBD patients who underwent a surgical procedure were included. The median time interval between surgical indication and performance of the surgical procedure did not differ between the COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 cohorts (34 vs. 33.5 days, p = 0.867). Multivariate analysis revealed a longer time interval between surgical indication and surgical procedure significantly correlated with the risk of developing postoperative complications [odds ratio (OR) 1.03, p = 0.034]. Moreover, previous surgery was identified as an independent predictor (OR 4.25, p = 0.018) for an increased risk of developing major postoperative complications. There was no significant surgical delay for patients with IBD in the COVID-19 pandemic cohort compared to the pre-pandemic cohort. However, a longer time interval between surgical indication and surgical procedure significantly correlated with the risk of developing postoperative complications. In the event of future scarcity in healthcare, efforts should be made to continue surgical procedures in IBD patients.

A Cost Overview of Minimally Invasive Total Mesorectal Excision in Rectal Cancer Patients: A Population-based Cohort in Experienced Centres.

Background: Total mesorectal excision has been the gold standard for the operative management of rectal cancer. The most frequently used minimally invasive techniques for surgical resection of rectal cancer are laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal excision. As studies comparing the costs of the techniques are lacking, this study aims to provide a cost overview. Method: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent total mesorectal resection between 2015 and 2017 at 11 dedicated centers, which completed the learning curve of the specific technique. The primary outcome was total in-hospital costs of each technique up to 30 days after surgery including all major surgical cost drivers, while taking into account different team approaches in the transanal approach. Secondary outcomes were hospitalization and complication rates. Statistical analysis was performed using multivariable linear regression analysis. Results: In total, 949 patients were included, consisting of 446 laparoscopic (47%), 306 (32%) robot-assisted, and 197 (21%) transanal total mesorectal excisions. Total costs were significantly higher for transanal and robot-assisted techniques compared to the laparoscopic technique, with median (interquartile range) for laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal at €10,556 (8,642;13,829), €12,918 (11,196;16,223), and € 13,052 (11,330;16,358), respectively (P < 0.001). Also, the one-team transanal approach showed significant higher operation time and higher costs compared to the two-team approach. Length of stay and postoperative complications did not differ between groups. Conclusion: Transanal and robot-assisted approaches show higher costs during 30-day follow-up compared to laparoscopy with comparable short-term clinical outcomes. Two-team transanal approach is associated with lower total costs compared to the transanal one-team approach.

Risk factors of postoperative intensive care unit admission during the COVID-19 pandemic: A multicentre retrospective cohort study.

Background: During the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, intensive care unit (ICU) capacity was scarce. Since surgical patients also require ICU admission, determining which factors lead to an increased risk of postoperative ICU admission is essential. This study aims to determine which factors led to an increased risk of unplanned postoperative ICU admission during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This multicentre retrospective cohort study investigated all patients who underwent surgery between 9 March 2020 and 30 June 2020. The primary endpoint was the number of surgical patients requiring postoperative ICU admission. The secondary endpoint was to determine factors leading to an increased risk of unplanned postoperative ICU admission, calculated by multivariate analysis with odds ratios (OR's) and 95% confidence (CI) intervals. Results: One hundred eighty-five (4.6%) of the 4051 included patients required unplanned postoperative ICU admission. COVID-19 positive patients were at an increased risk of being admitted to the ICU compared to COVID-19 negative (OR 3.14; 95% CI 1.06-9.33; p = 0.040) and untested patients (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.32-0.70; p = 0.001). Other predictors were male gender (OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.02-1.82; p = 0.046), body mass index (BMI) (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.02-1.08; p = 0.001), surgical urgency and surgical discipline. Conclusion: A confirmed COVID-19 infection, male gender, elevated BMI, surgical urgency, and surgical discipline were independent factors for an increased risk of unplanned postoperative ICU admission. In the event of similar pandemics, postponing surgery in patients with an increased risk of postoperative ICU admission may be considered.

Comparison of three-year oncological results after restorative low anterior resection, non-restorative low anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Oncological outcome might be influenced by the type of resection in total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. The aim was to see if non-restorative LAR would have worse oncological outcome. A comparison was made between non-restorative low anterior resection (NRLAR), restorative low anterior resection (RLAR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort included data from patients undergoing TME for rectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 in eleven Dutch hospitals. A comparison was made for each different type of procedure (APR, NRLAR or RLAR). Primary outcome was 3-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year local recurrence (LR) rate. RESULTS: Of 998 patients 363 underwent APR, 132 NRLAR and 503 RLAR. Three-year OS was worse after NRLAR (78.2%) compared to APR (86.3%) and RLAR (92.2%, p < 0.001). This was confirmed in a multivariable Cox regression analysis (HR 1.85 (1.07, 3.19), p = 0.03). The 3-year DFS was also worse after NRLAR (60.3%), compared to APR (70.5%) and RLAR (80.1%, p < 0.001), HR 2.05 (1.42, 2.97), p < 0.001. The LR rate was 14.6% after NRLAR, 5.2% after APR and 4.8% after RLAR (p = 0.005), HR 3.22 (1.61, 6.47), p < 0.001. CONCLUSION: NRLAR might be associated with worse 3-year OS, DFS and LR rate compared to RLAR and APR.

Towards Response ADAptive Radiotherapy for organ preservation for intermediate-risk rectal cancer (preRADAR): protocol of a phase I dose-escalation trial.

INTRODUCTION: Organ preservation is associated with superior functional outcome and quality of life (QoL) compared with total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. Only 10% of patients are eligible for organ preservation following short-course radiotherapy (SCRT, 25 Gy in five fractions) and a prolonged interval (4-8 weeks) to response evaluation. The organ preservation rate could potentially be increased by dose-escalated radiotherapy. Online adaptive magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) is anticipated to reduce radiation-induced toxicity and enable radiotherapy dose escalation. This trial aims to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of dose-escalated SCRT using online adaptive MRgRT. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The preRADAR is a multicentre phase I trial with a 6+3 dose-escalation design. Patients with intermediate-risk rectal cancer (cT3c-d(MRF-)N1M0 or cT1-3(MRF-)N1M0) interested in organ preservation are eligible. Patients are treated with a radiotherapy boost of 2×5 Gy (level 0), 3×5 Gy (level 1), 4×5 Gy (level 2) or 5×5 Gy (level 3) on the gross tumour volume in the week following standard SCRT using online adaptive MRgRT. The trial starts on dose level 1. The primary endpoint is the MTD based on the incidence of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) per dose level. DLT is a composite of maximum one in nine severe radiation-induced toxicities and maximum one in three severe postoperative complications, in patients treated with TME or local excision within 26 weeks following start of treatment. Secondary endpoints include the organ preservation rate, non-DLT, oncological outcomes, patient-reported QoL and functional outcomes up to 2 years following start of treatment. Imaging and laboratory biomarkers are explored for early response prediction. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial protocol has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the University Medical Centre Utrecht. The primary and secondary trial results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: WHO International Clinical Trials Registry (NL8997; https://trialsearch.who.int).

Topical diltiazem cream versus botulinum toxin a for the treatment of chronic anal fissure: a double-blind randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: A double-blind randomized clinical trial to compare topical diltiazem with botulinum toxin A (BTA) in the treatment of chronic anal fissure. BACKGROUND: Chronic anal fissures remain a challenging condition. Topical diltiazem and BTA are promising agents in the treatment of anal fissure. As to date diltiazem and BTA were never compared in a solid randomized trial, which is the purpose of this study. METHODS: One hundred thirty-four patients were randomized to receive either diltiazem cream and placebo injection or BTA injection and placebo cream. The primary end point was fissure healing after 3 months. RESULTS: After 3 months healing of the fissure was noted in 32 of 74 (43%) patients in the diltiazem group and 26 of 60 (43%) patients in the BTA group. Reduction >50% in mean pain score was noted in 58 of 74 (78%) patients in the diltiazem group and 49 of 60 (82%) patients in the BTA group. Perianal itching was the only side effect reported and was noted in 15% of patients in the diltiazem group, and this difference was statistically significant (P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: BTA yields higher healing rates in the short term, though after 3 months diltiazem and BTA resulted in equal healing rates. Also no significant difference in pain reduction was observed for both treatments. This study shows no significant advantage of one treatment compared to the other. This randomized clinical trial is registered by the Dutch Trial Register as NTR1012.

Long-term expansion of epithelial organoids from human colon, adenoma, adenocarcinoma, and Barrett's epithelium.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We previously established long-term culture conditions under which single crypts or stem cells derived from mouse small intestine expand over long periods. The expanding crypts undergo multiple crypt fission events, simultaneously generating villus-like epithelial domains that contain all differentiated types of cells. We have adapted the culture conditions to grow similar epithelial organoids from mouse colon and human small intestine and colon. METHODS: Based on the mouse small intestinal culture system, we optimized the mouse and human colon culture systems. RESULTS: Addition of Wnt3A to the combination of growth factors applied to mouse colon crypts allowed them to expand indefinitely. Addition of nicotinamide, along with a small molecule inhibitor of Alk and an inhibitor of p38, were required for long-term culture of human small intestine and colon tissues. The culture system also allowed growth of mouse Apc-deficient adenomas, human colorectal cancer cells, and human metaplastic epithelia from regions of Barrett's esophagus. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a technology that can be used to study infected, inflammatory, or neoplastic tissues from the human gastrointestinal tract. These tools might have applications in regenerative biology through ex vivo expansion of the intestinal epithelia. Studies of these cultures indicate that there is no inherent restriction in the replicative potential of adult stem cells (or a Hayflick limit) ex vivo.

Feasibility of enhanced recovery programme in various patient groups.

INTRODUCTION: An accelerated multi-modal rehabilitation programme may improve the recuperation and reduce the complication rate in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to see whether fast-track recovery is feasible in various patient groups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data on all patients operated for intestinal pathology from July 2006-April 2008 were prospectively collected for this prospective study. All included patients entered a multi-modal rehabilitation programme. Peri- and postoperative complications and readmissions, pathology reports and operation characteristics were recorded prospectively. RESULTS: Three hundred and forty-eight patients underwent colorectal surgery. No difference in readmission rate was found between various patient groups. The only significant differences after multivariate regression analysis were in re-operation rate and length of stay in favour of the elective surgery group. CONCLUSIONS: Fast-track modalities can be introduced with a low complication rate in all patient groups. Length of stay in elderly patients averages 10 days, implying that this group cannot be considered as "fast track", although the same protocol can also be applied in this group. Better organization of the aftercare might however considerably change the length of stay of elderly patients, since postoperative complications do not differ between old and young patients.

Impact of Dose-Escalated Chemoradiation on Quality of Life in Patients With Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: 2-Year Follow-Up of the Randomized RECTAL-BOOST Trial.

PURPOSE: Dose-escalated chemoradiation (CRT) for locally advanced rectal cancer did not result in higher complete response rates but initiated more tumor regression in the randomized RECTAL-BOOST trial (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01951521). This study compared patient reported outcomes between patients who received dose-escalated CRT (5 × 3 gray boost + CRT) or standard CRT for 2 years after randomization. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who were participating in the RECTAL-BOOST trial filled out European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and CR29 questionnaires on quality of life (QoL) and symptoms at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after start of treatment. Between-group differences in functional QoL domains were estimated using a linear mixed-effects model and expressed as effect size (ES). Symptom scores were compared using Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Patients treated with dose-escalated CRT (boost group, n = 51) experienced a significantly stronger decline in global health at 3 and 6 months (ES -0.4 and ES -0.4), physical functioning at 6 months (ES -1.1), role functioning at 3 and 6 months (ES -0.8 and ES -0.6), and social functioning at 6 months (ES -0.6), compared with patients treated with standard CRT (control group, n = 64). The boost group reported significantly more fatigue at 3 and 6 months (83% vs 66% respectively 89% vs 76%), pain at 3 and 6 months (67% vs 36% respectively 80% vs 44%), and diarrhea at 3 months (45% vs 29%) compared with the control group. From 12 months onwards, QoL and symptoms were similar between groups, apart from more blood/mucus in stool in the boost group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, dose-escalated CRT resulted in a transient deterioration in global health, physical, role, and social functioning and more pain, fatigue and diarrhea at 3 and 6 months after start of treatment compared with standard CRT. From 12 months onwards, the effect of dose-escalated CRT on QoL largely resolved.

The CARTS study: Chemoradiation therapy for rectal cancer in the distal rectum followed by organ-sparing transanal endoscopic microsurgery.

BACKGROUND: The CARTS study is a multicenter feasibility study, investigating the role of rectum saving surgery for distal rectal cancer. METHODS/DESIGN: Patients with a clinical T1-3 N0 M0 rectal adenocarcinoma below 10 cm from the anal verge will receive neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (25 fractions of 2 Gy with concurrent capecitabine). Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM) will be performed 8 - 10 weeks after the end of the preoperative treatment depending on the clinical response.Primary objective is to determine the number of patients with a (near) complete pathological response after chemoradiation therapy and TEM. Secondary objectives are the local recurrence rate and quality of life after this combined therapeutic modality. A three-step analysis will be performed after 20, 33 and 55 patients to ensure the feasibility of this treatment protocol. DISCUSSION: The CARTS-study is one of the first prospective multicentre trials to investigate the role of a rectum saving treatment modality using chemoradiation therapy and local excision. The CARTS study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01273051).