Total Neoadjuvant Therapy in Rectal Cancer: Multi-center Comparison of Induction Chemotherapy and Long-Course Chemoradiation Versus Short-Course Radiation and Consolidative Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Total neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer may include induction chemotherapy and chemoradiation or short-course radiotherapy and consolidative chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with clinical stage 2 or 3 rectal cancer who received induction chemotherapy followed by long-course chemoradiation at the University of Colorado (2016-2020) or short-course radiotherapy followed by consolidative chemotherapy at Washington University (2017-2020) were assessed. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients received induction chemotherapy and chemoradiation and 83 received short-course radiotherapy and consolidative chemotherapy. Among patients with complete re-staging evaluation, clinical complete response rates were similar, 49% (18/37) and 53% (44/83), respectively (p = 0.659). In the induction chemotherapy and chemoradiation group, 80% (n = 67) underwent surgery and 28% (n = 19) achieved a pathologic complete response. In the short-course radiotherapy and consolidative chemotherapy group, 44 (53%) patients underwent surgery and 11% (n = 5) had a pathologic complete response. Overall, a complete response was observed in 43% (n = 36) of patients who received induction chemotherapy and chemoradiation compared to 53% (n = 44) who received short-course radiotherapy and consolidative chemotherapy (p = 0.189). Perioperative outcomes were similar in patients who received induction chemotherapy and chemoradiation compared to short-course radiotherapy and consolidative chemotherapy: intraoperative complications (2% vs 7%), complete mesorectal specimen (85% vs 84%), anastomotic leak (9% vs 7%), organ/space infection (9% vs 5%), readmission (19% vs 21%), and reoperation (8% vs 9%), respectively (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with clinical stage 2 or 3 rectal cancer, total neoadjuvant therapy with either induction chemotherapy and chemoradiation or short-course radiotherapy followed by consolidative chemotherapy were associated with similar perioperative morbidity and complete response rates.

Improved Survival After Adjuvant Therapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Patients With Pathologic Complete Response.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of adjuvant therapy is unclear in patients with rectal cancer achieving a pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy on survival among rectal cancer patients with a pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: National Cancer Database (2004-2017). PATIENTS: Patients with clinical stage 2 or 3 rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation (50-50.4 Gy in 25-28 fractions) followed by total mesorectal excision with a pathologic complete response were included. INTERVENTION: Adjuvant chemotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall survival. RESULTS: There were 20,518 patients and 2221 (11%) had a pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Of 2221 patients, 1441 (65%) did not receive adjuvant therapy and 780 (35%) did. Patients who received adjuvant therapy were more likely to be younger (median 58 vs 62 y), have private insurance (61% vs 49%), and have node-positive disease (57% vs 48%) (all p < 0.05). There were no differences in sex, race, Charlson-Deyo score, clinical T-stage, tumor size and differentiation, adequate lymphadenectomy (12 or more), or sphincter preservation between groups (all p > 0.05). Overall survival at 5, 10, and 14 years was significantly longer in the adjuvant group (93%, 85%, 83%, respectively) compared to patients who did not receive adjuvant therapy (87%, 67%, 51%, respectively) ( p < 0.001). In a subgroup analysis, adjuvant therapy was associated with improved survival in patients with clinical stage 2 and 3 rectal cancer ( p < 0.001). After adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, omission of adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with significantly worse survival (HR 1.53, 95% 1.08-2.16). LIMITATIONS: Selection bias, unknown perioperative morbidity, chemotherapy regimen, recurrence status, and other unidentified factors limiting survival analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with clinical stage 2 or 3 rectal cancer, adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival in patients achieving a pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C139 . SOBREVIDA MEJORADA DESPUS DE LA TERAPIA ADYUVANTE EN PACIENTES CON CNCER DE RECTO LOCALMENTE AVANZADO CON RESPUESTA PATOLGICA COMPLETA: ANTECEDENTES:En los pacientes con cáncer de recto que logran una respuesta patológica completa después de la quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante y la escisión total del mesorrecto, el beneficio de la terapia adyuvante no está claro.OBJETIVO:Evaluar el beneficio de la quimioterapia adyuvante en la sobrevida de los pacientes con cáncer de recto con una respuesta patológica completa después de la quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.ESCENARIO:Base de Datos Nacional de Cáncer (2004-2017).PACIENTES:Pacientes con adenocarcinoma rectal en estadio clínico 2 ó 3 que se sometieron a quimiorradiación neoadyuvante (50-50,4 Gy en 25-28 fracciones) seguida de escisión mesorrectal total con una respuesta patológica completa.INTERVENCIÓN:Quimioterapia adyuvante.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Sobrevida global.RESULTADOS:Hubo 20.518 pacientes y 2.221 (11%) tuvieron una respuesta patológica completa después de la quimiorradiación neoadyuvante. Entre estos 2221 pacientes, 1441 (65%) no recibieron terapia adyuvante y 780 (35%) sí. Los pacientes que recibieron terapia adyuvante tenían más probabilidades de ser más jóvenes (mediana de 58 frente a 62 años), tener un seguro privado (61% frente a 49%) y tener enfermedad con linfonodos positivos (57% frente a 48 %) (todos p < 0,05). No hubo diferencias en género, raza, puntuación de Charlson-Deyo, estadio T clínico, tamaño y diferenciación del tumor, linfadenectomía adecuada (≥12) o preservación del esfínter entre los grupos (todos p > 0,05). La sobrevida general a los 5, 10 y 14 años fue significativamente mayor en el grupo adyuvante (93%, 85%, 83%, respectivamente) en comparación con los pacientes que no recibieron terapia adyuvante (87%, 67%, 51% respectivamente) ( p < 0,001). En un análisis de subgrupos, la terapia adyuvante se asoció con una mejor sobrevida general en pacientes con cáncer de recto en estadio clínico 2 y 3 ( p < 0,001). Después de ajustar por las características del paciente y del tumor, la omisión de la quimioterapia adyuvante se asoció con una sobrevida global significativamente peor (HR 1,53, IC del 95%, 1,08-2,16).LIMITACIONES:Sesgo de selección; morbilidad perioperatoria desconocida, régimen de quimioterapia, estado de recurrencia y otros factores no identificados que limitan el análisis de sobrevida.CONCLUSIONES:En pacientes con cáncer de recto en estadio clínico 2 ó 3, la quimioterapia adyuvante se asoció con una mejor sobrevida general en pacientes que lograron una respuesta patológica completa después de la quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C139 . (Traducción-Dr. Felipe Bellolio ).

High Complication Rate After Early Ileostomy Closure: Early Termination of the Short Versus Long Interval to Loop Ileostomy Reversal After Pouch Surgery Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with ulcerative colitis who undergo IPAA, a diverting ileostomy is used to diminish the severity of anastomotic complications. Typically, the ileostomy is closed after an interval of 2 to 4 months. The safety of earlier closure of the ileostomy after pouch surgery is unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare postoperative outcomes in patients randomly assigned to early (7-12 days) or late (≥8 weeks) ileostomy closure after ileal pouch construction. DESIGN: This was a multicenter, prospective randomized trial. SETTING: The study was conducted at colorectal surgical units at select United States hospitals. PATIENTS: Adults with ulcerative colitis who underwent 2- or 3-stage proctocolectomy with IPAA were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes included Comprehensive Complication Index at 30 days after ileostomy closure. The secondary outcomes included complications, severe complications, reoperations, and readmissions within 30 days of ileostomy closure. RESULTS: The trial was stopped after interim analysis because of a high rate of complications after early ileostomy closure. Among 36 patients analyzed, 1 patient (3%) had unplanned proctectomy with end-ileostomy. Of the remaining 35 patients, 28 patients (80%) were clinically eligible for early closure and underwent radiologic assessment. There were 3 radiologic failures. Of the 25 remaining patients, 22 patients (88%) were randomly assigned to early closure (n = 10) or late closure (n = 12), and 3 patients were excluded. Median Comprehensive Complication Index was 14.8 (0-54) and 0 (0-23) after early and late closure (p = 0.02). One or more complications occurred in 7 patients (70%) after early closure and in 2 patients (17%) after late closure (p = 0.01)' and complications were severe in 3 patients (30%) after early closure and 0 patients after late closure (p = 0.04). Reoperation was required in 1 patient (10%) and 0 patients (p = 0.26) after early closure and readmission was required in 7 patients (70%) and 1 patient (8%) after late closure (p = 0.003). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by early study closure and selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: Early closure of a diverting ileostomy in patients with ulcerative colitis who underwent IPAA is associated with an unacceptably high rate of complications. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C68. ALTA TASA DE COMPLICACIONES DESPUS DEL CIERRE PRECOZ DE LA ILEOSTOMA TERMINACIN TEMPRANA DEL ENSAYO ALEATORIZADO DE INTERVALO CORTO VERSUS LARGO PARA LA REVERSIN DE LA ILEOSTOMA EN ASA DESPUS DE LA CIRUGA DE RESERVORIO ILEAL: ANTECEDENTES:En los pacientes con colitis ulcerosa que se someten a una anastomosis del reservorio ileoanal, se utiliza una ileostomía de derivación para disminuir la gravedad de las complicaciones de la anastomosis. Por lo general, la ileostomía se cierra después de un intervalo de 2 a 4 meses. Se desconoce la seguridad del cierre más temprano de la ileostomía después de la cirugía de reservorio.OBJETIVO:Comparar los resultados posoperatorios en pacientes asignados al azar al cierre temprano (7-12 días) o tardío (≥ 8 semanas) de la ileostomía después de la construcción de un reservorio ileal.DISEÑO:Este fue un ensayo aleatorizado prospectivo multicéntrico.ESCENARIO:El estudio se realizó en unidades quirúrgicas colorrectales en hospitales seleccionados de los Estados Unidos.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron adultos con colitis ulcerosa que se sometieron a proctocolectomía en 2 o 3 tiempos con anastomosis ileoanal con reservorio.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los resultados primarios incluyeron el Índice Integral de Complicaciones a los 30 días después del cierre de la ileostomía. Los resultados secundarios incluyeron complicaciones, complicaciones graves, reoperaciones y readmisiones dentro de los 30 días posteriores al cierre de la ileostomía.RESULTADOS:El ensayo se detuvo después del análisis interino debido a una alta tasa de complicaciones después del cierre temprano de la ileostomía. Entre los 36 pacientes analizados, 1 (3%) tuvo una proctectomía no planificada con ileostomía terminal. De los 35 pacientes restantes, 28 (80%) fueron clínicamente elegibles para el cierre temprano y se sometieron a una evaluación radiológica. Hubo 3 fracasos radiológicos. De los 25 pacientes restantes, 22 (88 %) se asignaron al azar a cierre temprano (n = 10) o tardío (n = 12) y 3 fueron excluidos. La mediana del Índice Integral de Complicaciones fue de 14,8 (0-54) y 0 (0-23) después del cierre temprano y tardío (p = 0,02). Una o más complicaciones ocurrieron en 7 pacientes (70%) después del cierre temprano y 2 (17%) pacientes después del cierre tardío (p = 0,01) y fueron graves en 3 (30%) y 0 pacientes, respectivamente (p = 0,04). Requirieron reintervención en 1 (10%) y 0 (p = 0,26) y reingreso en 7 (70%) y 1 (8%) pacientes (p = 0,003).LIMITACIONES:Este estudio estuvo limitado por el cierre temprano del estudio; sesgo de selección.CONCLUSIONES:El cierre temprano de una ileostomía de derivación en pacientes con colitis ulcerosa con anastomosis de reservorio ileoanal se asocia con una tasa inaceptablemente alta de complicaciones. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C68. (Traducción-Dr. Felipe Bellolio).

Rectal Cancer: Clinical and Molecular Predictors of a Complete Response to Total Neoadjuvant Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Total neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer may increase pathological complete response rates, potentially allowing for a nonoperative approach. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify patient and tumor characteristics that predict a complete response following total neoadjuvant therapy. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a university-based National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. PATIENTS: The patients include those with stage 2 or 3 rectal adenocarcinoma. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions included total neoadjuvant therapy, total mesorectal excision, and nonoperative management. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Complete response was defined as either patients with a clinical complete response undergoing nonoperative management who remained cancer-free or patients undergoing surgery with a pathological complete response. RESULTS: Among 102 patients, median age was 54 years, 69% were male, median carcinoembryonic antigen level was 3.0 ng/mL, and the median distance of the tumor above the anorectal ring was 3 cm. Thirty-eight (37%) patients had a complete response, including 15 of 18 (83%) nonoperative patients who remained cancer free at a median of 22 months (range, 7-48 months) and 23 of 84 (27%) patients who underwent surgery and had a pathological complete response. The incomplete response group consisted of 61 patients who underwent initial surgery and 3 nonoperative patients with regrowth. There were no differences in gender, T-stage, or tumor location between groups. Younger age (median, 49 vs 55 years), normal carcinoembryonic antigen (71% vs 41%), clinical node-negative (24% vs 9%), smaller tumors (median 3.9 vs 5.4 cm), and wild-type p53 (79% vs 47%) and SMAD4 (100% vs 81%) were more likely to have a complete response (all p < 0.05). LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective study with a small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy, more than one-third will achieve a pathological complete response or sustained clinical complete response with nonoperative management, making oncological resection superfluous in these patients. Smaller, wild-type p53 and SMAD4, and clinically node-negative cancers are predictive features of a complete response. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B889 . CNCER DE RECTO PREDICTORES CLNICOS Y MOLECULARES DE UNA RESPUESTA COMPLETA A LA TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE TOTAL: ANTECEDENTES:La terapia neoadyuvante total en el cáncer de recto puede aumentar las tasas de respuesta patológica completa y permitir potencialmente un enfoque no quirúrgico.OBJETIVO:El objetivo fue identificar las características tanto del paciente y del tumor que logren predecir una respuesta completa después de la terapia neoadyuvante total.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.AJUSTES:Este estudio se realizó en un Centro Integral de Cáncer designado por el Instituto Nacional del Cáncer con sede universitaria.PACIENTES:Los pacientes incluyen aquellos con adenocarcinoma de recto en estadio 2 o 3.INTERVENCIONES:Terapia neoadyuvante total, escisión total del mesorrecto, manejo conservador no quirúrgico.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:La respuesta completa se definió como pacientes con una respuesta clínica completa sometidos a tratamiento no quirúrgico que permanecieron libres de cáncer o pacientes sometidos a cirugía con una respuesta patológica completa.RESULTADOS:Entre 102 pacientes, la mediana de edad fue de 54 años, el 69% fueron hombres, la mediana del nivel de antígeno carcinoembrionario fue de 3.0 ng/ml y la mediana de la distancia del tumor por encima del anillo anorrectal fue de 3 cm. Thirty-eight (37%) pacientes tuvieron una respuesta completa que incluyó a 15 de 18 (83%) pacientes con manejo no operatorio y que permanecieron libres de cáncer en una mediana de 22 meses (rango 7- 48 meses) y 23 de 84 (27%) pacientes que fueron sometidos a cirugía y tuvieron una respuesta patológica completa. El grupo de respuesta incompleta consistió en 61 pacientes que fueron sometidos inicialmente a cirugía y 3 pacientes no quirúrgicos con recrecimiento. No se encontró diferencias de género, estadio T o ubicación del tumor entre los grupos. Edad más joven (mediana 49 frente a 55), antígeno carcinoembrionario normal (71% frente a 41%), ganglios clínicos negativos (24% frente a 9%), tumores más pequeños (mediana de 3,9 frente a 5,4 cm) y p53 de tipo salvaje (79 % vs 47%) y SMAD4 (100% vs 81%) tenían más probabilidades de tener una respuesta completa (todos p < 0,05).LIMITACIONES:Este fue un estudio retrospectivo y con un tamaño de muestra pequeño.CONCLUSIONES:En pacientes con cáncer de recto tratados con terapia neoadyuvante total, más de un tercio logrará una respuesta patológica completa o una respuesta clínica completa sostenida con manejo no operatorio, logrando que la resección oncológica sea superflua en estos pacientes. Los cánceres más pequeños, clínicamente con ganglios negativos, con p53 de tipo salvaje y SMAD4, son características predictoras de una respuesta completa. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B889 . (Traducción-Dr. Osvaldo Gauto ).

Diagnosis and Management of Colonic Volvulus.

CASE SUMMARY: An 88-year-old man with no significant medical history, and in a good state of health, presented to the emergency department with 4 days of obstipation, progressive abdominal pain, and bloating. Examination revealed abdominal distension and generalized tenderness without signs of peritonitis. Laboratory values, including lactate and complete blood count, were within normal limits. Computed tomography imaging of the abdomen and pelvis revealed radiological signs of sigmoid volvulus and no evidence of bowel perforation (Fig. 1). Flexible sigmoidoscopic examination revealed no evidence of mucosal ischemia and enabled detorsion of the colon. The patient's symptoms resolved after the detorsion. He was seen in consultation by a surgeon who advised surgical treatment only if the volvulus recurred. After hospital discharge, the patient self-educated about sigmoid volvulus and sought a second surgical opinion. Five weeks after his initial presentation and 1 week after complete colonoscopy, he underwent laparoscopic sigmoidectomy with colorectal anastomosis. His postoperative course was uneventful. At 6-month follow-up, he remained well with no bowel-related concerns.

Rectal prolapse surgery in males and females: An ACS NSQIP-based comparative analysis of over 12,000 patients.

BACKGROUND: Rectal prolapse is relatively uncommon in male patients. The aim of this study was to compare males and females who underwent rectal prolapse surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of the ACS NSQIP public use file. RESULTS: Among 12,220 patients, 978 (8%) were male and 11,242 (92%) were female. Males were younger, 56 (38-73) vs. 71 (58-83) years, less often white (83% vs. 71%), had lower ASA scores, and underwent more laparoscopic (33% vs. 27%), more open (33% vs. 29%), and less perineal (33% vs 44%) procedures (all p < 0.05). Morbidity (9.9% vs. 10.0%), reoperation (3.4% vs. 3.1%), and readmission (5.7% vs. 6.0%) were not different for males and females. In subgroup analysis by surgical procedure type, there remained no outcome differences. Propensity matched analysis revealed no difference in the use of laparoscopic, open, or perineal procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Males with rectal prolapse are younger, have a different racial distribution, a lower surgical risk profile, and undergo different surgical procedures than females, which appears to be driven by patient age and surgical risk assessment.

Outcomes in rectal cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic low anterior resection compared to open: a propensity-matched analysis of the NCDB (2010-2015).

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive resection of rectal cancer is controversial due to concerns of the oncologic efficacy and the difficulties of a laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME). METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), for the period 2010-2015, perioperative outcomes and overall survival (OS) in patients with rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic or robotic low anterior resection (LLAR or RLAR) were compared to open LAR (OLAR) after propensity score matching. RESULTS: 26,047 patients underwent LAR: 4062 (16%) RLAR, 9236 (35%) LLAR, and 12,749 (49%) OLAR. Patient and clinical tumor characteristics were similar between groups after matching. The conversion rates among patients undergoing LLAR and RLAR were 15% and 8%, respectively. In matched OLAR and LLAR patients, longitudinal and circumferential resection margins (CRM) were positive in 5.4% and 3.2% (p < 0.001) and 5.5% and 4.1% (p < 0.001); length of stay was 6 and 5 days, (p < 0.001); readmission was required in 6.5% and 7.0% (p = 0.112); OS at 1, 3, and 5 years were 95.5%, 83.7%, and 72.0% and 95.9%, 86.3%, and 76.4%, respectively (p < 0.001). In matched OLAR and RLAR patients, longitudinal and CRM were positive in 5.4% and 3.2% (p < 0.001) and 5.5% and 3.9% (p < 0.001); length of stay was 6 and 5 days (p < 0.001); readmission was required in 6.1% and 7.9%, (p = 0.010); and OS at 1, 3, and 5 years were 96.2%, 86.5%, and 77.1% and 97.5%, 89.4%, and 79.7%, respectively (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this national sample of propensity matched patients with rectal cancer who underwent open, laparoscopic, or robotic sphincter-saving rectal resection, only small differences in terms of resection margin status, length of stay, readmission, and overall survival were revealed. With acknowledgement of the limitations introduced by selection bias, our data indicate that each of the evaluated operative techniques results in acceptable outcomes for patients with rectal cancer.

Improved survival in rectal cancer patients who are treated with long-course versus short-course neoadjuvant radiotherapy: A propensity-matched analysis of the NCDB.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated comparable survival outcomes for short-course (SCRT) and long-course neoadjuvant radiotherapy (LCRT) in patients with rectal cancer. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Data Base (2004-2015), a propensity score was used to match 188 patients with rectal cancer receiving SCRT to 376 patients receiving LCRT. Perioperative, oncologic, and survival outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Patient and clinical tumor characteristics were similar between groups. Patients in the LCRT were more likely to undergo surgery (91% vs 85%; P = 0.03). The LCRT group were more likely to have tumor (T) (56% vs 43%) and nodal (N) (25% vs 19%) downstaging, and a complete pathological response (15% vs 6%) compared with the SCRT group (all P < 0.05). Length of stay (6 vs 8 days), 30-day (1% vs 5%) mortality, and 90-day mortality (1% vs 10%) were significantly lower in the LCRT group (all P < 0.05). After adjusting for patient and tumor-related characteristics, LCRT was associated with a 50% reduction in the risk of mortality compared with SCRT (hazard ratios, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.70). CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, LCRT was superior to SCRT in terms of tumor response to neoadjuvant therapy, perioperative mortality, and overall survival. These findings provide evidence for the use of LCRT when neoadjuvant therapy is indicated.

Cabozantinib Exhibits Potent Antitumor Activity in Colorectal Cancer Patient-Derived Tumor Xenograft Models via Autophagy and Signaling Mechanisms.

Antiangiogenic therapy used in treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) inevitably succumbs to treatment resistance. Upregulation of MET may play an essential role to acquired anti-VEGF resistance. We previously reported that cabozantinib (XL184), an inhibitor of receptor tyrosine kinases (RTK) including MET, AXL, and VEGFR2, had potent antitumor effects in mCRC patient-derived tumor explant models. In this study, we examined the mechanisms of cabozantinib sensitivity, using regorafenib as a control. The tumor growth inhibition index (TGII) was used to compare treatment effects of cabozantinib 30 mg/kg daily versus regorafenib 10 mg/kg daily for a maximum of 28 days in 10 PDX mouse models. In vivo angiogenesis and glucose uptake were assessed using dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI and [18F]-FDG-PET imaging, respectively. RNA-Seq, RTK assay, and immunoblotting analysis were used to evaluate gene pathway regulation in vivo and in vitro Analysis of TGII demonstrated significant antitumor effects with cabozantinib compared with regorafenib (average TGII 3.202 vs. 48.48, respectively; P = 0.007). Cabozantinib significantly reduced vascularity and glucose uptake compared with baseline. Gene pathway analysis showed that cabozantinib significantly decreased protein activity involved in glycolysis and upregulated proteins involved in autophagy compared with control, whereas regorafenib did not. The combination of two separate antiautophagy agents, SBI-0206965 and chloroquine, plus cabozantinib increased apoptosis in vitro Cabozantinib demonstrated significant antitumor activity, reduction in tumor vascularity, increased autophagy, and altered cell metabolism compared with regorafenib. Our findings support further evaluation of cabozantinib and combinational approaches targeting autophagy in colorectal cancer. Mol Cancer Ther; 17(10); 2112-22. ©2018 AACR.

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Colon Cancer.

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons is dedicated to ensuring high-quality patient care by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus. The Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee is composed of society members who are chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery. This committee was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus. This is accompanied by developing Clinical Practice Guidelines based on the best available evidence. These guidelines are inclusive and not prescriptive. Their purpose is to provide information on which decisions can be made, rather than to dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, health care workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines. It should be recognized that these guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all the circumstances presented by the individual patient.

Laparoscopic colectomy in obese patients: a comparison of laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic techniques.

BACKGROUND: Recent American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS-NSQIP)-based evidence indicates that laparoscopic (LAP) colectomy results in improved outcomes compared to hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) colectomy in the general population. Previous comparative studies demonstrated that the HAL technique offers distinct advantages for obese patients. The aim of this study was to perform comparative analyses of HAL and LAP colectomy and low anterior resection (LAR) in obese patients. METHODS: The ACS-NSQIP public use file and targeted colectomy dataset, 2012-2014, were utilized for patients undergoing colectomy and LAR. Only obese patients (BMI > 30) and laparoscopic or hand-assisted operations were included. Patient, operation, and outcome variables were compared in two separate cohorts: colectomy and LAR. Bivariate analysis compared the approaches, followed by multivariable regression. RESULTS: Of 9610 obese patients included, HAL and LAP colectomy were performed in 3126 and 3793 patients and LAR in 1431 and 1260 patients, respectively. In comparison to LAP colectomy, HAL colectomy patients had increased comorbidities including class 2 and 3 obesity. HAL colectomy was associated with higher overall morbidity (20 vs. 16%, p < 0.001), infectious complications (10.2 vs. 7.7%, p < 0.001), anastomotic leaks (3.0 vs. 2.2%, p = 0.03), and ileus (11 vs. 8%, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated that overall morbidity (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.11-1.44), infectious complications (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.14-1.59), and ileus (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.12-1.57) were each increased in the HAL colectomy cohort but not different for HAL and LAP LAR. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to LAP colectomy, the HAL technique is used more often in obese patients with an increased operative risk profile. While inherent bias and unmeasured variables limit the analysis, the available data indicate that the HAL technique is associated with increased perioperative morbidity. Alternatively, HAL and LAP LAR are performed in obese patients with a similar risk profile and result in similar postoperative outcomes.