Quality of life following pelvic exenteration in neoplasms.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration (PE) is an extensive surgical treatment reserved for advanced or recurrent pelvic neoplasms, with potential impacts on patients' quality of life (QoL) poorly referenced in the literature. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate QoL outcomes among three types of PE. METHODS: A cross-sectional study assessed 106 patients divided into anterior PE (APE), posterior PE (PPE), or total PE (TPE) groups. QoL was measured using e short form 36 version 2 (SF-36) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) QoL questionnaires. Descriptive and inferential analyses compared questionnaire scores. RESULTS: The findings unveiled a balance among the three groups concerning demographic variables and comorbidities, with the exception of a male predominance in the APE and TPE cohorts. Notably, the APE group exhibited elevated scores in overall health (assessed via SF-36) and social functioning and diarrhea domains (assessed via QLQ-C30). Moreover, in terms of the fatigue and nausea/vomiting domains (assessed via QLQ-C30), the APE group demonstrated superior QoL compared to the PPE group. Conversely, the PPE group manifested a notably lower QoL in the constipation domain (assessed via QLQ-C30) compared to the other two groups. Additionally, disease recurrence was significantly associated with diminished QoL across multiple domains. CONCLUSION: APE patients exhibited better QoL than PPE and TPE groups, with disease recurrence adversely affecting QoL.

Brazilian Society of Surgical Oncology guidelines for malignant bowel obstruction management.

BACKGROUND: Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) is a frequent complication in advanced cancer patients and especially those with abdominal tumors. The clinical management of MBO requires a specific and individualized approach based on the disease prognosis. Surgery is recommended. Less invasive approaches such as endoscopic treatments should be considered when surgery is contraindicated. The priority of care for inoperable and consolidated MBO is to control the symptoms and promote the maximum level of comfort. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to develop recommendations for the effective management of MBO. METHODS: A questionnaire was administered to all members of the Brazilian Society of Surgical Oncology, of whom 41 surgeons participated in the survey. A literature review of studies retrieved from the National Library of Medicine database was conducted on particular topics chosen by the participants. These topics addressed questions regarding the MBO management, to define the level of evidence and strength of each recommendation, and an adapted version of the Infectious Diseases Society of America Health Service rating system was used. RESULTS: Most aspects of the medical approach and management strategies reviewed were strongly recommended by the participants. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines outlining the strategies for management MBO were developed based on the strongest evidence available in the literature.

Brazilian consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of extremities soft tissue sarcomas.

INTRODUCTION: Soft tissue sarcomas (STSs) are rare tumors and constitute only 1% of all tumors in adults. Indeed, due to their rarity, most cases in Brazil are not treated according to primary international guidelines. METHODS: This consensus addresses the treatment of STSs in the extremities. It was made by workgroups from Brazilian Societies of Surgical Oncology, Orthopaedics, Clinical Oncology, Pathology, Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, and Radiation Oncology. The workgroups based their arguments on the best level of evidence in the literature and recommendations were made according to diagnosis, staging, and treatment of STSs. A meeting was held with all the invited experts and the topics were presented individually with the definition of the degree of recommendation, based on the levels of evidence in the literature. RESULTS: Risk factors and epidemiology were described as well as the pathological aspects and imaging. All recommendations are described with the degree of recommendation and levels of evidence. CONCLUSION: Recommendations based on the best literature regional aspects were made to guide professionals who treat STS. Separate consensus on specific treatments for retroperitoneal, visceral, trunk, head and neck sarcomas, and gastrointestinal stromal tumor, are not contemplated into this consensus.