TAilored SToma policY after TME for rectal cancer: The TASTY approach.

AIM: Diverting stomas are routinely used in restorative surgery following total mesorectal exicision (TME) for rectal cancer to mitigate the clinical risks of anastomotic leakage (AL). However, routine diverting stomas are associated with their own complication profile and may not be required in all patients. A tailored approach based on personalized risk of AL and selective use of diverting stoma may be more appropriate. The aim of the TAilored SToma policY (TASTY) project was to design and pilot a standardized, tailored approach to diverting stoma in low rectal cancer. METHOD: A mixed-methods approach was employed. Phase I externally validated the anastomotic failure observed risk score (AFORS). We compared the observed rate of AL in our cohort to the theoretical, predicted risk of the AFORS score. To identify the subset of patients who would benefit from early closure of the diverting stoma using C-reactive protein (CRP) we calculated the Youden index. Phase II designed the TASTY approach based on the results of Phase I. This was evaluated within a second prospective cohort study in patients undergoing TME for rectal cancer between April 2018 and April 2020. RESULTS: A total of 80 patients undergoing TME surgery for rectal cancer between 2016 and 2018 participated in the external validation of the AFORS score. The overall observed AL rate in this cohort of patients was 17.5% (n = 14). There was a positive correlation between the predicted and observed rates of AL using the AFORS score. Using ROC curves, we calculated a CRP cutoff value of 115 mg/L on postoperative day 2 for AL with a sensitivity of 86% and a negative predictive value of 96%. The TASTY approach was designed to allocate patients with a low risk AFORS score to primary anastomosis with no diverting stoma and high risk AFORS score patients to a diverting stoma, with early closure at 8-14 days, if CRP values and postoperative CT were satisfactory. The TASTY approach was piloted in 122 patients, 48 (39%) were identified as low risk (AFORS score 0-1) and 74 (61%) were considered as high risk (AFORS score 2-6). The AL rate was 10% in the low-risk cohort of patient compared to 23% in the high-risk cohort of patients, p = 0.078 The grade of Clavien-Dindo morbidity was equivalent. The incidence of major LARS was lowest in the no stoma cohort at 3 months (p = 0.014). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the feasibility and safety of employing a selective approach to diverting stoma in patients with a low anastomosis following TME surgery for rectal cancer.

Local Regrowth and the Risk of Distant Metastases Among Patients Undergoing Watch-and-Wait for Rectal Cancer: What Is the Best Control Group? Multicenter Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: A proportion of rectal cancer patients who achieve a clinical complete response may develop local regrowth. Although salvage appears to provide appropriate local control, the risk of distant metastases is less known. OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of distant metastases between patients who achieve a clinical complete response (watch-and-wait strategy) and subsequent local regrowth and patients managed by surgery after chemoradiation. DESIGN: Retrospective multicenter cohort study. SETTINGS: This study used data of patients from 3 institutions who were treated between 1993 and 2019. PATIENTS: Patients with initial clinical complete response (after neoadjuvant therapy) followed by local regrowth and patients with near-complete pathological response (≤10%) after straightforward surgery after chemoradiation were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors for distant metastases. Kaplan-Meier curves were created (log-rank test) to compare survival outcomes. Analyses were performed using time zero as last day of radiation therapy or as date of salvage resection in the local regrowth group. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 79 patients with local regrowth developed distant metastases, whereas only 10 of 74 after upfront total mesorectal excision following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy ( p = 0.04). Local regrowth and final pathology (ypT3-4) were the only independent risk factors associated with distant metastases. When using date of salvage resection as time zero, distant metastases-free survival rates were significantly inferior for patients with local regrowth (70% vs 86%; p = 0.01). LIMITATIONS: Small number of patients, many neoadjuvant therapies, and selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing watch-and-wait strategy who develop local regrowth are at higher risk for development of distant metastases compared to patients with near-complete pathological response managed by upfront surgery after chemoradiation. See Video Abstract. NUEVO CRECIMIENTO LOCAL Y EL RIESGO DE METSTASIS A DISTANCIA ENTRE PACIENTES SOMETIDOS A OBSERVACIN Y ESPERA POR CNCER DE RECTO CUL ES EL MEJOR GRUPO DE CONTROL ESTUDIO RETROSPECTIVO MUTICNTRICO: ANTECEDENTES:Una proporción de pacientes que logran una respuesta clínica completa pueden desarrollar un nuevo crecimiento local. Si bien el rescate parece proporcionar un control local apropiado, el riesgo de metástasis a distancia es menos conocido.OBJETIVO:Comparar el riesgo de metástasis a distancia entre los pacientes que logran una respuesta clínica completa (estrategia de observación y espera) y el nuevo crecimiento local posterior con los pacientes tratados con cirugía después de la quimiorradiación.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte multicéntrico retrospectivo.CONFIGURACIÓN:Este estudio utilizó datos de pacientes de 3 instituciones que fueron tratados entre 1993 y 2019.PACIENTES:Pacientes con respuesta clínica completa inicial (después de la terapia neoadyuvante) seguida de crecimiento local nuevo y pacientes con respuesta patológica casi completa (≤10 %) después de cirugía directa después de quimiorradiación.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se realizó un análisis univariante/multivariante para identificar los factores de riesgo de metástasis a distancia. Se crearon curvas de Kaplan-Meier (prueba de rango logarítmico) para comparar los resultados de supervivencia. El análisis se realizó utilizando el tiempo cero como último día de radioterapia (1) o como fecha de resección de rescate (2) en el grupo de recrecimiento local.RESULTADOS:Veintiuno de 79 pacientes con recrecimiento local desarrollaron metástasis a distancia, mientras que solo 10 de 74 después de una cirugía sencilla (p = 0,04). El recrecimiento local y la patología final (ypT3-4) fueron los únicos factores de riesgo independientes asociados con las metástasis a distancia. Cuando se utilizó la fecha de la resección de rescate como tiempo cero, las tasas de supervivencia sin metástasis a distancia fueron significativamente inferiores para los pacientes con recrecimiento local (70 frente a 86 %; p = 0,01).LIMITACIONES:Pequeño número de pacientes, muchas terapias neoadyuvantes, sesgo de selección.CONCLUSIONES:Los pacientes sometidos a observación y espera que desarrollan un nuevo crecimiento local tienen un mayor riesgo de desarrollar metástasis a distancia en comparación con los pacientes con una respuesta patológica casi completa manejados con cirugía por adelantado después de la quimiorradiación. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).

IDEAL Stage 2a/b prospective cohort study of transanal transection and single-stapled anastomosis for rectal cancer.

AIM: There are several anastomotic techniques available to facilitate restorative rectal cancer surgery after total mesorectal excision (TME), including double-stapled anastomosis (DST) and handsewn coloanal anastomosis (CAA). However, to date no one technique is superior with regard to anastomotic leakage (AL) or functional outcomes. Transanal transection single-stapled anastomosis (TTSS) aims to overcome some of the technical challenges and offer comparable clinical and functional outcomes to traditional anastomotic techniques. The aim of this study was to explore the role of TTSS in modern rectal cancer surgery and to provide comparative clinical and functional outcome data with DST and CAA. METHOD: A prospective cohort study was undertaken to assess the safety and clinical and patient-reported outcomes associated with the TTSS procedure. All patients undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer with an anastomosis performed within 6 cm of the anal verge between January 2016 and April 2021 were prospectively enrolled into this study. Clinical and patient-reported outcome data, including low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) assessment, were collected. The primary endpoint was anastomotic leakage within 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 275 patients participated in this study, with 70 (25%) patients undergoing a TTSS, 110 (40%) undergoing a DST and 95 (35%) undergoing a CAA. Patients undergoing a CAA had more distal tumours than those having a TTSS or DST, with a median tumour height of 5, 7 and 9 cm (p < 0.001), respectively. We observed a statistically significant reduction in AL in the TTSS group compared with the DST group, with rates of 8.6% versus 20.9% (p = 0.028). There was no difference in LARS scores between patients undergoing TTSS and DST (p = 0.228), while patients with a CAA had worse LARS scores than TTSS patients (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: TTSS is a technically safe and feasible anastomotic technique in rectal cancer surgery as an alternative to DST and CAA. Its advantages over DST are a reduced AL rate and, over CAA, improved function. It should therefore be considered as an alternative technique to improve clinical and patient-reported outcomes in restorative rectal cancer surgery.

Anastomotic leakage and functional outcomes following total mesorectal excision with delayed and immediate colo-anal anastomosis for rectal cancer: Two single-arm phase II trials.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage (AL) remains a major cause of morbidity following total mesorectal excision (TME). A diverting ileostomy reduces the risk of AL but impairs quality of life (QoL). Delayed colo-anal anastomosis (DCAA) may be an alternative to immediate colo-anal anastomosis (ICAA) without creation of a diverting ileostomy. STUDY DESIGN: Patients with T3 or N+ rectal tumours were treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation and TME. To evaluate DCAA or ICAA with diverting ileostomy, a two multicenter single-arm phase II trials was designed. The primary endpoint was the rate of AL requiring a diverting ileostomy up to 30 days postoperatively. Secondary endpoints were 30-day postoperative complications, 1- and 2-year disease-free survival; QoL at baseline, 6 months and anorectal function measured by the low anterior resection syndrome questionnaire and Wexner score at baseline, 6 months and a late assessment at median 8 years following surgery. RESULTS: AL requiring diverting ileostomy occurred in one patient (2.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI) [0; 11.1]) in the DCAA group and in five patients (8.6%; 95%CI [3.2; 21.0]) in the ICAA group. Thirty-day postoperative complications occurred in 13 patients (27.1%) in the DCAA group and in 10 patients (19.2%) in the ICAA group. Short and long-term functional outcomes showed similar patterns. CONCLUSION: These two single-arm phase II trials showed that DCAA has low rates of AL requiring a diverting ileostomy and acceptable long-term functional results. DCAA seems a good choice to restore bowel continuity.

Low-impact laparoscopy in colorectal resection-A multicentric randomised trial comparing low-pressure pneumoperitoneum plus microsurgery versus low-pressure pneumoperitoneum alone: The PAROS II trial.

INTRODUCTION: Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum (LLP) in laparoscopy colorectal surgery (CS) has resulted in reduced hospital stay and lower analgesic consumption. Microsurgery (MS) in CS is a technique that has a significant impact with respect to postoperative pain. The combination of MS plus LLP, known as low-impact laparoscopy (LIL), has never been applied in CS. Therefore, this trial will assess the efficacy of LLP plus MS versus LLP alone in terms of decreasing postoperative pain 24 h after surgery, without taking opioids. METHOD: PAROS II will be a prospective, multicentre, outcome assessor-blinded, randomised controlled phase III clinical trial that compares LLP plus MS versus LLP alone in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for colonic or upper rectal cancer or benign pathology. The primary outcome will be the number of patients with postoperative pain 24 h after the surgery, as defined by a visual analogue scale rating ≤3 and without taking opioids. Overall, PAROS II aims to recruit 148 patients for 50% of patients to reach the primary outcome in the LLP plus MS arm, with 80% power and an 5% alpha risk. CONCLUSION: The PAROS II trial will be the first phase III trial to investigate the impact of LIL, including LLP plus MS, in laparoscopic CS. The results may improve the postoperative recovery experience and decrease opioid consumption after laparoscopic CS.

The Crying Need for a Better Response Assessment in Rectal Cancer.

OPINION STATEMENT: Since total neoadjuvant treatment achieves almost 30% pathologic complete response, organ preservation has been increasingly debated for good responders after neoadjuvant treatment for patients diagnosed with rectal cancer. Two organ preservation strategies are available: a watch and wait strategy and a local excision strategy including patients with a near clinical complete response. A major issue is the selection of patients according to the initial tumor staging or the response assessment. Despite modern imaging improvement, identifying complete response remains challenging. A better selection could be possible by radiomics analyses, exploiting numerous image features to feed data characterization algorithms. The subsequent step is to include baseline and/or pre-therapeutic MRI, PET-CT, and CT radiomics added to the patients' clinicopathological data, inside machine learning (ML) prediction models, with predictive or prognostic purposes. These models could be further improved by the addition of new biomarkers such as circulating tumor biomarkers, molecular profiling, or pathological immune biomarkers.

International standardization and optimization group for intersphincteric resection (ISOG-ISR): modified Delphi consensus on anatomy, definition, indication, surgical technique, specimen description and functional outcome.

AIM: Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is an oncologically complex operation for very low-lying rectal cancers. Yet, definition, anatomical description, operative indications and operative approaches to ISR are not standardized. The aim of this study was to standardize the definition of ISR by reaching international consensus from the experts in the field. This standardization will allow meaningful comparison in the literature in the future. METHOD: A modified Delphi approach with three rounds of questionnaire was adopted. A total of 29 international experts from 11 countries were recruited for this study. Six domains with a total of 37 statements were examined, including anatomical definition; definition of intersphincteric dissection, intersphincteric resection (ISR) and ultra-low anterior resection (uLAR); indication for ISR; surgical technique of ISR; specimen description of ISR; and functional outcome assessment protocol. RESULTS: Three rounds of questionnaire were performed (response rate 100%, 89.6%, 89.6%). Agreement (≥80%) reached standardization on 36 statements. CONCLUSION: This study provides an international expert consensus-based definition and standardization of ISR. This is the first study standardizing terminology and definition of deep pelvis/anal canal anatomy from a surgical point of view. Intersphincteric dissection, ISR and uLAR were specifically defined for precise surgical description. Indication for ISR was determined by the rectal tumour's maximal radial infiltration (T stage) below the levator ani. A new surgical definition of T3isp was reached by consensus to define T3 low rectal tumours infiltrating the intersphincteric plane. A practical flowchart for surgical indication for uLAR/ISR/abdominoperineal resection was developed. A standardized ISR surgical technique and functional outcome assessment protocol was defined.

Is Delaying a Coloanal Anastomosis the Ideal Solution for Rectal Surgery?: Analysis of a Multicentric Cohort of 564 Patients From the GRECCAR.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the specific results of delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) in light of its 2 main indications. BACKGROUND: DCAA can be proposed either immediately after a low anterior resection (primary DCAA) or after the failure of a primary pelvic surgery as a salvage procedure (salvage DCAA). METHODS: All patients who underwent DCAA intervention at 30 GRECCAR-affiliated hospitals between 2010 and 2021 were retrospectively included. RESULTS: Five hundred sixty-four patients (male: 63%; median age: 62 years; interquartile range: 53-69) underwent a DCAA: 66% for primary DCAA and 34% for salvage DCAA. Overall morbidity, major morbidity, and mortality were 57%, 30%, and 1.1%, respectively, without any significant differences between primary DCAA and salvage DCAA ( P = 0.933; P = 0.238, and P = 0.410, respectively). Anastomotic leakage was more frequent after salvage DCAA (23%) than after primary DCAA (15%), ( P = 0.016).Fifty-five patients (10%) developed necrosis of the intra-abdominal colon. In multivariate analysis, intra-abdominal colon necrosis was significantly associated with male sex [odds ratio (OR) = 2.67 95% CI: 1.22-6.49; P = 0.020], body mass index >25 (OR = 2.78 95% CI: 1.37-6.00; P = 0.006), and peripheral artery disease (OR = 4.68 95% CI: 1.12-19.1; P = 0.030). The occurrence of this complication was similar between primary DCAA (11%) and salvage DCAA (8%), ( P = 0.289).Preservation of bowel continuity was reached 3 years after DCAA in 74% of the cohort (primary DCAA: 77% vs salvage DCAA: 68%, P = 0.031). Among patients with a DCAA mannered without diverting stoma, 75% (301/403) have never required a stoma at the last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: DCAA makes it possible to definitively avoid a stoma in 75% of patients when mannered initially without a stoma and to save bowel continuity in 68% of the patients in the setting of failure of primary pelvic surgery.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX and preoperative chemoradiotherapy for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (UNICANCER PRODIGE 23): Health-related quality of life longitudinal analysis.

BACKGROUND: Results from the phase 3 PRODIGE 23 study showed that neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) with mFOLFIRINOX and preoperative chemoradiotherapy improved disease-free survival compared with preoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. We aimed to assess the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes from this study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 461 patients (231 versus 230 patients) from 35 French hospitals were randomly assigned to either NAC with FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, irinotecan 180 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 over 46 h intravenously every 2 weeks for 6 cycles) followed by preoperative chemoradiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy only. HRQOL was assessed at baseline, during treatments and at 2-year follow-up using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29 questionnaires. RESULTS: Compared to baseline, HRQOL scores during NAC were better for tumour symptoms but worse for global health status, functional domains, fatigue, nausea/vomiting and appetite loss. During follow-up, improved emotional functioning was observed, but deterioration of body image, increased urinary incontinence, and lower male sexual function were observed. Linear mixed model exhibited a treatment-by-time interaction effect for nausea/vomiting and insomnia symptoms showing a greater deterioration in the standard-of-care group. Only treatment arm and baseline physical functioning were independent significant favourable prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: NAC improved tumour-related symptoms and transitorily reduced most functional scores. Adding NAC before chemoradiotherapy and increased physical functioning at baseline were independent significant prognostic factors for longer disease-free survival.

Comparison between preoperative chemoradiotherapy and lateral pelvic lymph node dissection in clinical T3 low rectal cancer without enlarged lateral lymph nodes.

AIM: The standard strategy for clinical T3 rectal cancer without enlarged lateral lymph nodes is preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) in Western countries and TME with bilateral lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLND) in Japan. This study compared surgical, pathological and oncological results of these two strategies. METHOD: Patients who underwent preoperative CRT followed by TME in France (CRT + TME group) and those who underwent TME with LPLND in Japan (TME + LPLND group) for clinical T3 rectal adenocarcinoma without enlarged lateral lymph nodes from 2010 to 2016 were retrospectively analysed. RESULTS: In total, 439 patients were included in this study. The estimated local recurrence rate (LRR), disease-free survival and overall survival at 5 years post-surgery was 4.9%, 71% and 82% in the CRT + TME group, and 8.6%, 75% and 90% in the TME + LPLND group, respectively. Lateral LRR versus non-lateral LRR was 0.5% versus 4.2% in the CRT + TME group and 1.8% versus 6.2% in the TME + LPLND group. Obturator nerve injury and isolated pelvic abscess were shown only in the TME + LPLND group. Urinary complications were more frequent in the TME + LPLND group than in the CRT + TME group. CONCLUSION: Disease-free survival was not significantly different after TME with LPLND and after CRT followed by TME. LRR was not significantly different after both strategies; however, there was a trend for higher LRR after TME with LPLND than after CRT followed by TME. Obturator nerve injury, isolated lateral pelvic abscess and urinary complications should be noted when TME with LPLND is applied.

An International Multicenter Prospective Study Evaluating the Long-term Oncological Impact of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in ypN+ Rectal Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the oncological benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) in node positive (ypN+) rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and radical surgery. BACKGROUND: The evidence for AC after total mesorectal excision for locally advanced rectal cancer is conflicting and the net survival benefit is debated. METHODS: An international multicenter comparative cohort study was performed comparing oncological outcomes in tertiary rectal cancer centers from the Netherlands and France. Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision surgery and with positive lymph nodes on histologic examination (ypN+) were included for analysis. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to compare disease-free (DFS) and overall survival in AC and non-AC groups. RESULTS: Of 1265 patients screened, a total of 239 rectal cancer patients with ypN+ disease were included. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar in both groups. Higher systemic recurrence rates were observed in the non-AC group compared with those who received AC [32.0% (n=40) vs 17.5% (n=11), respectively, P =0.034]. DFS at 1 and 5 years postoperatively were significantly better in the AC group (92% vs 80% at 1 year; 72% vs 51% at 5 years, P =0.024), whereas no difference in overall survival was observed. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter comparative cohort study, we identified an oncological benefit of AC in both systemic recurrence and DFS in ypN+ rectal cancer patients. From this data, systemic chemotherapy continues to confer oncological benefit in locally advanced ypN+ rectal cancer.

Feasibility study of a Response Surveillance Program in locally advanced mid and low rectal cancer to increase organ preservation.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of tumor response in rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment by MRI (Tumour Regression Grade, TRG 1-5) is well standardized. The overall timing and method of defining complete response (cCR) remain controversial. The aim of this work was to evaluate the feasibility of a defined Response Surveillance Program (RSP) to increase organ preservation for locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment. METHODS: A standardized program of clinical (CR), radiological (RR) and metabolic (MR) assessment of tumor response is defined over a 6 month period from completion of NACRT with formal assessment performed every 2 months (M). Patients with TRG1-3 at M2 and TRG1-2 at M4 continue in the program up to M6 assessment. Patients managed with this protocol from 2016 to 2020 were analyzed. The primary endpoint was rectal preservation rate. Secondary endpoints included disease-free survival and overall survival at 3 years. RESULT: 314 potentially suitable patients were enrolled in the RSP and 50 patients completed the six month program and were successfully enrolled into watch and wait. Fourteen (28%) were T2 tumor stage, 27 (54%) T3 and nine (18%) were T4. During watch and wait, patients with locoregional recurrence (n = 11) were treated with local excision (n = 3), endocavitary radiotherapy (n = 1), TME (n = 5) and APR (n = 2). With a median follow-up of 32 months, the rectal preservation rate was 88%, with a 3-year disease-free survival of 67% and an overall survival of 98%. CONCLUSION: This study validates the feasibility of the practical implementation of a Response Surveillance Program to increase organ preservation rates without compromising oncological outcomes in rectal cancer.

Organ preservation in rectal cancer: review of contemporary management.

BACKGROUND: Organ preservation as a successful management for rectal cancer is an evolving field. Refinement of neoadjuvant therapies and extended interval to response assessment has improved tumour downstaging and cCR rates. METHODS: This was a narrative review of the current evidence for all aspects of organ preservation in rectal cancer management, together with a review of the future direction of this field. RESULTS: Patients can be selected for organ preservation opportunistically, based on an unexpectedly good tumour response, or selectively, based on baseline tumour characteristics that predict organ preservation as a viable treatment strategy. Escalation in oncological therapy and increasing the time interval from completion of neaodjuvant therapy to tumour assessment may further increase tumour downstaging and complete response rates. The addition of local excision to oncological therapy can further improve organ preservation rates. Cancer outcomes in organ preservation are comparable to those of total mesorectal excision, with low regrowth rates reported in patients who achieve a complete response to neoadjuvant therapy. Successful organ preservation aims to achieve non-inferior oncological outcomes together with improved functionality and survivorship. Future research should establish consensus of follow-up protocols, and define criteria for oncological and functional success to facilitate patient-centred decision-making. CONCLUSION: Modern neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer and increasing the interval to tumour response increases the number of patients who can be managed successfully with organ preservation in rectal cancer, both as an opportunistic event and as a planned treatment strategy.

A multicentre, prospective cohort study of handsewn versus stapled intracorporeal anastomosis for robotic hemicolectomy.

AIM: Robotic right hemicolectomy is gaining in popularity due to the recognized technical benefits associated with the robotic platform. However, there is a lack of standardization regarding the optimal anastomotic technique in this cohort of patients, namely stapled or handsewn intra- or extra-corporeal anastomosis. The ergonomic benefit associated with the robotic platform lends itself to intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA). The aim of this study was to compare the short-term clinical outcomes of stapled versus handsewn ICA. METHOD: A multicentre prospective cohort study was undertaken across four high-volume robotic centres in France between September 2018 and December 2020. All adult patients undergoing an elective robotic right hemicolectomy with an ICA performed and a minimum postoperative follow-up of 30 days were included. The primary endpoint of our study was anastomotic leak within 30 days postoperatively. RESULTS: A total of 144 patients underwent robotic right hemicolectomy: 92 (63.8%) had a stapled ICA and 52 (36.1%) a handsewn ICA. The operative indication was adenocarcinoma in 90% with a stapled ICA compared with 62% in the handsewn ICA group (p < 0.001). The overall operating time was longer in the handsewn ICA group compared with the stapled ICA group (219 min vs. 193 min; p = 0.001). The anastomotic leak rate was 3.3% in stapled ICA and 3.8% in handsewn ICA (p = 1.00). There was no difference in the rate or severity of postoperative morbidity. CONCLUSION: ICA robotic hemicolectomy is technically safe and is associated with low rates of anastomotic leak overall and equivalent clinical outcomes between the two techniques.

Is it safe to perform an anastomosis for rectal cancer after prostate cancer? A multicentre study of 126 patients from the GRECCAR group.

AIM: To determine the safety of performing an anastomosis after rectal cancer (RC) resection in patients with a previously treated prostate cancer (PC). METHODS: Patients with a previously treated PC who underwent rectal resection from 2008 to 2018 were retrospectively included. Outcomes were compared between patients who underwent rectal resection with anastomosis (restorative surgery, RS+ group) and those with a definitive stoma (RS- group). In the RS+ group, anastomotic leak (AL) rates were assessed according to the type of reconstruction. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients underwent rectal surgery for mid-low RC after a previous PC treated by radiotherapy (RT) and/or radical prostatectomy. Overall, 80 patients (63%) underwent a RS and 46 patients (37%) underwent rectal surgery with a definitive stoma. There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of intraoperative data, except for the type of resection with more multivisceral resection in the RS- group (p < 0.01). In the RS+group, a diverting stoma was performed in 74% of cases. No difference between the two groups in terms of overall morbidity was found. In the RS+group (n = 80), 17 patients (21%) experienced AL. Of these, none was observed when delayed coloanal anastomosis was performed (p = 0.16). Long-term permanent stoma in the RS+ group was 16% (n = 13). CONCLUSION: Restorative surgery after resection for RC in patients with a previous history of RT and/or radical prostatectomy for PC is safe without additional morbidity. In selected patients for restorative surgery, performing delayed coloanal anastomosis may represent a promising option.

Nonmetastatic ypt0 rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment and total mesorectal excision: Lessons from a retrospective multicentric cohort of 383 patients.

BACKGROUND: A better understanding of pathological features and oncological survival in ypT0 rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is required to improve patient selection criteria for rectal-preserving approach by local excision. Our aim was to define risk of lymph node metastasis and oncological outcomes in ypT0 rectal cancer after chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision. METHODS: All consecutive patients who underwent total mesorectal excision for a nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma classified ypT0 after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, with or without locoregional lymph node involvement (ypN+ or ypN-), in 14 French academic centers between 2002 and 2015 were included. Data were collected retrospectively. Overall and disease-free survival were explored. RESULTS: Among the 383 ypT0 patients, 6% were ypN+ (23/283). Before chemoradiotherapy, 86% (327/380) were staged cT3-T4 and 41% (156/378) were staged cN+. The risk of ypN+ did not differ between cT3-T4 and cT1-T2 patients (P = .345) or between cN+ and cN- patients (P = .384). After a median follow-up of 61.1 months, we observed 95% confidence interval (92%-97%) of 5-year overall survival and 93% confidence interval (91%-96%) of 5-year disease-free survival. In Cox multivariate analysis, overall survival was altered by intra-abdominal septic complications (hazard ratio = 2.53, confidence interval [1.11-5.78], P = .028). Regarding disease-free survival, ypN+ status and administration of adjuvant chemotherapy were associated with a reduced disease-free survival (P = .001 for both). cT3/T4 staging and cN+ staging did not modify overall survival (P = .332 and P = .450) nor disease-free survival (P = .862 and P = .124). CONCLUSION: The risk of lymph node metastasis and the oncological survival do not depend on the initial cT or cN staging in cases of ypT0 complete rectal tumor regression.

Tailored Strategy for Locally Advanced Rectal Carcinoma (GRECCAR 4): Long-term Results From a Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label, Phase II Trial.

BACKGROUND: Systematic preoperative radiochemotherapy and total mesorectal excision are the standard of care for locally advanced rectal carcinoma. Some patients can be over- or undertreated. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the long-term oncological, functional, and late morbidity outcomes after tailored radiochemotherapy and induction high-dose chemotherapy. DESIGN: This is a prospective, phase II, multicenter, open-label study at 16 tertiary centers in France. SETTINGS: Patients were operated on by surgeons from the French GRECCAR group. PATIENTS: Two hundred six patients were randomly assigned to treatment: good responders after chemotherapy (≥75% tumor volume reduction) to immediate surgery (arm A) or standard radiochemotherapy (capecitabine 50) plus surgery (arm B) and poor responders to capecitabine 50 (arm C) or intensive radiochemotherapy (capecitabine 60; 60 Gy irradiation; arm D) before surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Treatment was tailored according to MRI response to induction chemotherapy. RESULTS: After induction treatment, 194 patients were classified as good (n = 30, 15%) or poor (n = 164, 85%) responders; they were included in arms A and B (16 and 14 patients) or C and D (113 and 51 patients). The primary objective was obtained: R0 resection rates (90% CI) in the 4 arms were 100% (74-100), 100% (85-100), 83% (72-91), and 88% (77-95). At 5 years, overall survival rates were 90% (47.3-98.5), 93.3% (61.3-99.0), 84.3% (71.0-91.8), and 86.1% (71.6-93.5); disease-free survival rates were 80% (40.9-94.6), 89.5% (64.1-97.3), 72.9% (58.5-82.9), and 72.8% (57.7-83.2); local recurrence rates were 0%, 0%, 2.1% (0.3-13.9), and 9.3% (3.6-23.0); and metastasis rates were 20% (5.4-59.1), 10.5% (2.7-35.9), 18% (31.8-94.6), and 18.8% (10.2-33.0). Late morbidity and quality-of-life evaluations showed no significant difference between arms. LIMITATIONS: Limitations were due to the small number of patients randomly assigned in the good responder arms, especially arm A without radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: Tailoring preoperative radiochemotherapy based on induction treatment response appears to be promising. Future prospective trials should confirm this strategy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B761 . REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Identifier: NCT01333709. ESTRATEGIA HECHA A MEDIDA PARA EL TRATAMIENTO DEL CARCINOMA DE RECTO LOCALMENTE AVANZADO GRECCAR RESULTADOS A LARGO PLAZO DE UN ESTUDIO ALEATRIO MULTICNTRICO Y ABIERTO DE FASE II: ANTECEDENTES:La radio-quimioterapia pré-operatoria sistemáticas y la excisión total del mesorrecto son el estándar en el tratamiento del carcinoma de recto localmente avanzado. En éste sentido, algunos pacientes podrían recibir un sobre o un infra-tratamiento.OBJETIVO:Evaluar los resultados oncológicos, funcionales y de morbilidad a largo plazo después de radio-quimioterapia personalizada y quimioterapia de inducción a dosis elevadas.DISEÑO:Estudio aleatório multicéntrico y abierto de Fase II° realizado en 16 centros terciarios en Francia.AJUSTE:Aquellos pacientes operados por cirujanos del grupo GRECCAR francés.PACIENTES:206 pacientes fueron asignados aleatoriamente al tratamiento: los buenos respondedores después de quimioterapia (reducción del volumen tumoral ≥75%) a la cirugía inmediata (brazo A) o a la radio-quimioterapia estándar (Cap 50) asociada a la cirugía (brazo B); los malos respondedores a Cap 50 (brazo C) o a la radio-quimioterapia intensiva (Cap 60 (irradiación de 60 Gy) (brazo D) previas a la cirugía.INTERVENCIONES:Tratamiento adaptado según la respuesta de la RM a la TC de inducción.RESULTADOS:Después del tratamiento de inducción, 194 pacientes fueron clasificados como buenos (n = 30, 15%) o malos (n = 164, 85%) respondedores, y se incluyeron en los brazos A y B (16 y 14 pacientes) o C y D (113 y 51 pacientes). Se alcanzó el objetivo principal: las tasas de resección R0 [intervalo de confianza del 90%] en los cuatro brazos respectivamente, fueron del 100% [74-100], 100% [85-100], 83% [72-91] y 88% [77-95]. A los 5 años, las tasas fueron: de sobrevida global 90% [47,3-98,5], 93,3% [61,3-99,0], 84,3% [71,0-91,8], 86,1% [71,6-93,5]; de sobrevida libre a la enfermedad 80% [40,9-94,6], 89,5% [64,1-97,3], 72,9% [58,5-82,9], 72,8% [57,7-83,2]; de recidiva local 0, 0, 2,1% [0,3-13,9], 9,3% [3,6-23,0]; de metástasis 20% [5,4-59,1], 10,5% [2,7-35,9], 18% [31,8-94,6], 18,8% [10,2-33,0]. La evaluación tardía de la morbilidad y la calidad de vida no mostraron diferencias significativas entre los brazos.LIMITACIONES:Debido al pequeño número de pacientes asignados al azar en los brazos de buenos respondedores, especialmente en el brazo A de aquellos sin radioterapia.CONCLUSIÓN:Parecería muy prometedor el adaptar la radio-quimioterapia pré-operatoria basada en la respuesta al tratamiento de inducción. Estudios prospectivos en el futuro podrán confirmar la presente estrategia. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B761 . (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo )IDENTIFICADOR DE CLINICALTRIALS.GOV:NCT01333709. Groupe de REcherche Chirurgicale sur le CAncer du Rectum.

Structured and shared MRI staging lexicon and report of rectal cancer: A consensus proposal by the French Radiology Group (GRERCAR) and Surgical Group (GRECCAR) for rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To develop French guidelines by experts to standardize data acquisition, image interpretation, and reporting in rectal cancer staging with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Evidence-based data and opinions of experts of GRERCAR (Groupe de REcherche en Radiologie sur le CAncer du Rectum [i.e., Rectal Cancer Imaging Research Group]) and GRECCAR (Groupe de REcherche en Chirurgie sur le CAncer du Rectum [i.e., Rectal Cancer Surgery Research Group]) were combined using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method to attain consensus guidelines. Experts scoring of reporting template and protocol for data acquisition were collected; responses were analyzed and classified as "Recommended" versus "Not recommended" (when ≥ 80% consensus among experts) or uncertain (when < 80% consensus among experts). RESULTS: Consensus regarding patient preparation, MRI sequences, staging and reporting was attained using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method. A consensus was reached for each reporting template item among the experts. Tailored MRI protocol and standardized report were proposed. CONCLUSION: These consensus recommendations should be used as a guide for rectal cancer staging with MRI.