Minimally invasive vs. open segmental resection of the splenic flexure for cancer: a nationwide study of the Italian Society of Surgical Oncology-Colorectal Cancer Network (SICO-CNN).

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the efficacy of minimally invasive (MI) segmental resection of splenic flexure cancer (SFC) is not available, mostly due to the rarity of this tumor. This study aimed to determine the survival outcomes of MI and open treatment, and to investigate whether MI is noninferior to open procedure regarding short-term outcomes. METHODS: This nationwide retrospective cohort study included all consecutive SFC segmental resections performed in 30 referral centers between 2006 and 2016. The primary endpoint assessing efficacy was the overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints included cancer-specific mortality (CSM), recurrence rate (RR), short-term clinical outcomes (a composite of Clavien-Dindo > 2 complications and 30-day mortality), and pathological outcomes (a composite of lymph nodes removed ≧12, and proximal and distal free resection margins length ≧ 5 cm). For these composites, a 6% noninferiority margin was chosen based on clinical relevance estimate. RESULTS: A total of 606 patients underwent either an open (208, 34.3%) or a MI (398, 65.7%) SFC segmental resection. At univariable analysis, OS and CSM were improved in the MI group (log-rank test p = 0.004 and Gray's tests p = 0.004, respectively), while recurrences were comparable (Gray's tests p = 0.434). Cox multivariable analysis did not support that OS and CSM were better in the MI group (p = 0.109 and p = 0.163, respectively). Successful pathological outcome, observed in 53.2% of open and 58.3% of MI resections, supported noninferiority (difference 5.1%; 1-sided 95%CI - 4.7% to ∞). Successful short-term clinical outcome was documented in 93.3% of Open and 93.0% of MI procedures, and supported noninferiority as well (difference - 0.3%; 1-sided 95%CI - 5.0% to ∞). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with SFC, the minimally invasive approach met the criterion for noninferiority for postoperative complications and pathological outcomes, and was found to provide results of OS, CSM, and RR comparable to those of open resection.

Robotic Rectal Resection for Rectal Cancer in Elderly Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Rectal cancer is estimated to increase due to an expanding aging population, thus affecting elderly patients more frequently. The optimal surgical treatment for this type of patient remains controversial because they are often excluded from or underrepresented in trials. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the feasibility and the safety of robotic surgery in elderly patients (>70 years old) undergoing curative treatment for rectal cancer. Studies comparing elderly (E) and young (Y) patients submitted to robotic rectal resection were searched on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Data regarding surgical oncologic quality, post-operative, and survival outcomes were extracted. Overall, 322 patients underwent robotic resection (81 in the E group and 241 in the Y group) for rectal cancer. No differences between the two groups were found regarding distal margins and the number of nodes yielded (12.70 in the E group vs. 14.02 in the Y group, p = 0.16). No differences were found in conversion rate, postoperative morbidity, mortality, and length of stay. Survival outcomes were only reported in one study. The results of this study suggest that elderly patients can be submitted to robotic resection for rectal cancer with the same oncologic surgical quality offered to young patients, without increasing postoperative mortality and morbidity.

Molecularly Targeted Therapies for Gastric Cancer. State of the Art.

Many phase III trials failed to demonstrate a survival benefit from the addition of molecular therapy to conventional chemotherapy for advanced and metastatic gastric cancer, and only three agents were approved by the FDA. We examined the efficacy and safety of novel drugs recently investigated. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for phase III randomized controlled trials published from January 2016 to December 2020. Patients in the experimental arm received molecular therapy with or without conventional chemotherapy, while those in the control arm had conventional chemotherapy alone. The primary outcomes were overall and progression-free survival. The secondary outcomes were the rate of tumor response, severe adverse effects, and quality of life. Eight studies with a total of 4223 enrolled patients were included. The overall and progression-free survival of molecular and conventional therapy were comparable. Most of these trials did not find a significant difference in tumor response rate and in the number of severe adverse effects and related deaths between the experimental and control arms. The survival benefits of molecular therapies available to date for advanced and metastatic gastric cancer are rather unclear, mostly due to inaccurate patient selection, particularly concerning oncogene amplification and copy number.

Association of Delayed Surgery With Oncologic Long-term Outcomes in Patients With Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Not Responding to Preoperative Chemoradiation.

Importance: Extending the interval between the end of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and surgery may enhance tumor response in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. However, data on the association of delaying surgery with long-term outcome in patients who had a minor or poor response are lacking. Objective: To assess a large series of patients who had minor or no tumor response to CRT and the association of shorter or longer waiting times between CRT and surgery with short- and long-term outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Data from 1701 consecutive patients with rectal cancer treated in 12 Italian referral centers were analyzed for colorectal surgery between January 2000 and December 2014. Patients with a minor or null tumor response (ypT stage of 2 to 3 or ypN positive) stage greater than 0 to neoadjuvant CRT were selected for the study. The data were analyzed between March and July 2020. Exposures: Patients who had a minor or null tumor response were divided into 2 groups according to the wait time between neoadjuvant therapy end and surgery. Differences in surgical and oncological outcomes between these 2 groups were explored. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were overall and disease-free survival between the 2 groups. Results: Of a total of 1064 patients, 654 (61.5%) were male, and the median (IQR) age was 64 (55-71) years. A total of 579 patients (54.4%) had a shorter wait time (8 weeks or less) 485 patients (45.6%) had a longer wait time (greater than 8 weeks). A longer waiting time before surgery was associated with worse 5- and 10-year overall survival rates (67.6% [95% CI, 63.1%-71.7%] vs 80.3% [95% CI, 76.5%-83.6%] at 5 years; 40.1% [95% CI, 33.5%-46.5%] vs 57.8% [95% CI, 52.1%-63.0%] at 10 years; P < .001). Also, delayed surgery was associated with worse 5- and 10-year disease-free survival (59.6% [95% CI, 54.9%-63.9%] vs 72.0% [95% CI, 67.9%-75.7%] at 5 years; 36.2% [95% CI, 29.9%-42.4%] vs 53.9% [95% CI, 48.5%-59.1%] at 10 years; P < .001). At multivariate analysis, a longer waiting time was associated with an augmented risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.50-2.26; P < .001) and death/recurrence (hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.39-2.04; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, a longer interval before surgery after completing neoadjuvant CRT was associated with worse overall and disease-free survival in tumors with a poor pathological response to preoperative CRT. Based on these findings, patients who do not respond well to CRT should be identified early after the end of CRT and undergo surgery without delay.