Evaluation of the advantage of surgeons certified by the endoscopic surgical skill qualification system participating in laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection.

Background: A technical qualification system was developed in 2004 by the Japan Society for Endoscopic Surgery. An analysis of the EnSSURE study on 3188 stage II-III rectal cancer patients, which was performed by including the participation of qualified surgeons as assistants and advisers without restricting their participation as operators, revealed that the participation of technically qualified surgeons in surgery improved the technical and oncological safety of laparoscopic rectal resection. Aim: This secondary retrospective analysis of the EnSSURE study examined the advantage of qualified surgeons participating in laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR). Methods: The outcomes of low anterior resection were compared between groups with and without the participation of surgeons qualified by the Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification System (Q and non-Q groups, respectively). We used propensity score matching to generate paired cohorts at a one-to-one ratio. The postoperative complication rate, short-term results (hemorrhage volume, operative time, number of dissected lymph nodes, open conversion rate, intraoperative complication rate, and R0 resection rate), and long-term results (disease-free survival rate, local recurrence rate, and overall survival rate) were evaluated. Results: The frequencies of postoperative complications, anastomotic bleeding, and intraperitoneal abscess were significantly lower, the operative time was significantly shorter, the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter, and the number of dissected lymph nodes was higher in the Q group. No significant differences were observed in disease-free survival, local recurrence, or overall survival rate rates between the groups. Conclusion: The participation of qualified surgeons in LAR is technically advantageous.

Differentiation grade as a risk factor for lymph node metastasis in T1 colorectal cancer.

Objectives: Japanese guidelines include high-grade (poorly differentiated) tumors as a risk factor for lymph node metastasis (LNM) in T1 colorectal cancer (CRC). However, whether the grading is based on the least or most predominant component when the lesion consists of two or more levels of differentiation varies among institutions. This study aimed to investigate which method is optimal for assessing the risk of LNM in T1 CRC. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 971 consecutive patients with T1 CRC who underwent initial or additional surgical resection from 2001 to 2021 at our institution. Tumor grading was divided into low-grade (well- to moderately differentiated) and high-grade based on the least or predominant differentiation analyses. We investigated the correlations between LNM and these two grading analyses. Results: LNM was present in 9.8% of patients. High-grade tumors, as determined by least differentiation analysis, accounted for 17.0%, compared to 0.8% identified by predominant differentiation analysis. A significant association with LNM was noted for the least differentiation method (p < 0.05), while no such association was found for predominant differentiation (p = 0.18). In multivariate logistic regression, grading based on least differentiation was an independent predictor of LNM (p = 0.04, odds ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval 1.00-2.83). Sensitivity and specificity for detecting LNM were 27.4% and 84.1% for least differentiation, and 2.1% and 99.3% for predominant differentiation, respectively. Conclusions: Tumor grading via least differentiation analysis proved to be a more reliable measure for assessing LNM risk in T1 CRC compared to grading by predominant differentiation.

The "Watch and Wait" Method After Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer Requiring Abdominoperineal Resection.

The present study examined the therapeutic effects of preoperative neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (NACRT) and predictive factors for complete clinical remission, compared the prognosis and costs of abdominoperineal resection (APR) and the "watch and wait" method (WW), and evaluated the usefulness of WW. In our department, patients with stage II-III lower rectal cancer requiring APR receive NACRT. NACRT was performed as a preoperative treatment (52 Gy + S-1: 80-120 mg/day × 25 days). Eight weeks after the completion of NACRT, rectal examination, endoscopic, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging findings were evaluated to assess its therapeutic effects. APR was indicated for patients in whom endoscopic findings suggested a residual tumor in which a deep ulcer or marginal swelling remained or lymph node metastasis. However, WW was selected for patients who refused APR after informed consent was obtained. In the APR and WW groups, 5- and 20-year treatment costs after CRT were calculated using the Medical Fee Points of Japan in 2020. No significant differences were observed in 3-year disease-free survival rates for either parameter between the two groups. Regarding expenses, treatment costs were lower in the WW group than in the APR group. Organ preservation using active surveillance with CRT for rectal cancer requiring APR is feasible with the achievement of endoluminal complete remission.