Bowel preparation for elective colorectal resection: multi-treatment machine learning analysis on 6241 cases from a prospective Italian cohort.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence concerning bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL), surgical site infections (SSIs), and overall morbidity (any adverse event, OM) after elective colorectal surgery using four different types of bowel preparation. METHODS: A prospective database gathered among 78 Italian surgical centers in two prospective studies, including 6241 patients who underwent elective colorectal resection with anastomosis for malignant or benign disease, was re-analyzed through a multi-treatment machine-learning model considering no bowel preparation (NBP; No. = 3742; 60.0%) as the reference treatment arm, compared to oral antibiotics alone (oA; No. = 406; 6.5%), mechanical bowel preparation alone (MBP; No. = 1486; 23.8%), or in combination with oAB (MoABP; No. = 607; 9.7%). Twenty covariates related to biometric data, surgical procedures, perioperative management, and hospital/center data potentially affecting outcomes were included and balanced into the model. The primary endpoints were AL, SSIs, and OM. All the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Compared to NBP, MBP showed significantly higher AL risk (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.23-2.71; p = .003) and OM risk (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.10-1.72; p = .005), no significant differences for all the endpoints were recorded in the oA group, whereas MoABP showed a significantly reduced SSI risk (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.25-0.79; p = .008). CONCLUSIONS: MoABP significantly reduced the SSI risk after elective colorectal surgery, therefore representing a valid alternative to NBP.

Completion total mesorectal excision after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and local excision for rectal cancer.

AIM: Local excision (LE) in selected cases after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (RCT) for locally advanced rectal cancer in clinically complete or major responders has been recently reported as an alternative to standard radical resection. Completion total mesorectal excision (cTME) is generally performed when high-risk pathological features are found in LE surgical specimens. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of residual tumour and lymph node metastases after cTME in patients previously treated by RCT + LE. The secondary aims were to quantify the rate of postoperative morbidity and mortality and to evaluate the long-term oncological outcome of this group of patients. METHODS: All patients treated from 2007 to 2020 by LE for locally advanced rectal cancer with a clinically complete or major response to RCT who had a subsequent cTME for high-risk pathological factors (ypT >1 and/or TRG >2 and/or positive margins) were included in this multicentre retrospective study. Pathological data, postoperative short-term morbidity (classified according to Clavien-Dindo) and mortality and oncological long-term outcome after cTME were recorded in a database. Statistical analysis was performed using Wizard for iOS version 1.9.31. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients were included in the study. The rate of R0 resection was 95.7%, and a sphincter-saving procedure was performed in 37 patients (78.7%), with a protective stoma rate of 78.4%. In 28 cases (59.6%), it was possible to perform a minimally invasive approach. A residual tumour (pT and/or pN) on cTME specimens was found in 21 cases (44.7%). The rate of lymph node metastases was 12.8%. The overall short-term (within 30 days) postoperative morbidity was 34%, but grade >2 postoperative complications occurred in only nine patients (19.1%), with a reoperation rate of 6.4%. No short-term postoperative deaths occurred. At a median follow-up of 57 months (range: 21-174), the long-term stoma-free rate was 70.2%, and the actuarial 5-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and local control (LC) were 86.7%, 88.9% and 95.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: When patients exhibit high-risk pathological factors after RCT + LE, cTME should be suggested due to the high risk of residual tumour or lymph node involvement (44.7%). The results after cTME in terms of the rate of R0 resection, sphincter-saving procedure, postoperative morbidity and mortality and long-term oncological outcome seem to be acceptable and do not represent a contraindication to use LE as a first-step treatment in patients with major or complete clinical response after RCT.

Total mesorectal excision after rectal-sparing approach in locally advanced rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant treatment: a high volume center experience.

Background: In patient with a complete or near-complete clinical response after neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer, the organ-sparing approach [watch & wait (W&W) or local excision (LE)] is a possible alternative to major rectal resection. Although, in case of local recurrence or regrowth, after these treatments, a total mesorectal excision (TME) can be operated. Method: In this retrospective study, we selected 120 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) who had a complete or near-complete clinical response after neoadjuvant treatment, from June 2011 to June 2021. Among them, 41 patients were managed by W&W approach, whereas 79 patients were managed by LE. Twenty-three patients underwent salvage TME for an unfavorable histology after LE (11 patients) or a local recurrence/regrowth (seven patients in LE group - five patients in W&W group), with a median follow-up of 42 months. Results: Following salvage TME, no patients died within 30 days; serious adverse events occurred in four patients; 8 (34.8%) patients had a definitive stoma; 8 (34.8%) patients undergone to major surgery for unfavorable histology after LE - a complete response was confirmed. Conclusion: Notably active surveillance after rectal sparing allows prompt identifying signs of regrowth or relapse leading to a radical TME. Rectal sparing is a possible strategy for LARC patients although an active surveillance is necessary.

Abdominal drainage after elective colorectal surgery: propensity score-matched retrospective analysis of an Italian cohort.

BACKGROUND: In Italy, surgeons continue to drain the abdominal cavity in more than 50 per cent of patients after colorectal resection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of abdominal drain placement on early adverse events in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. METHODS: A database was retrospectively analysed through a 1:1 propensity score-matching model including 21 covariates. The primary endpoint was the postoperative duration of stay, and the secondary endpoints were surgical site infections, infectious morbidity rate defined as surgical site infections plus pulmonary infections plus urinary infections, anastomotic leakage, overall morbidity rate, major morbidity rate, reoperation and mortality rates. The results of multiple logistic regression analyses were presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95 per cent c.i. RESULTS: A total of 6157 patients were analysed to produce two well-balanced groups of 1802 patients: group (A), no abdominal drain(s) and group (B), abdominal drain(s). Group A versus group B showed a significantly lower risk of postoperative duration of stay >6 days (OR 0.60; 95 per cent c.i. 0.51-0.70; P < 0.001). A mean postoperative duration of stay difference of 0.86 days was detected between groups. No difference was recorded between the two groups for all the other endpoints. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that placement of abdominal drain(s) after elective colorectal surgery is associated with a non-clinically significant longer (0.86 days) postoperative duration of stay but has no impact on any other secondary outcomes, confirming that abdominal drains should not be used routinely in colorectal surgery.

Rectal Sparing Approach after preoperative Radio- and/or Chemo-therapy (ReSARCh): a prospective, multicenter, observational study.

BACKGROUND: Rectal-sparing approaches for patients with rectal cancer who achieved a complete or major response following neoadjuvant therapy constitute a paradigm of a potential shift in the management of patients with rectal cancer; however, their role remains controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of rectal-sparing approaches to preserve the rectum without impairing the outcomes. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, observational study investigated the outcomes of patients with clinical stage II-III mid-low rectal adenocarcinoma treated with any neoadjuvant therapy, and either transanal local excision or watch-and-wait approach, based on tumor response (major or complete) and patient/surgeon choice. The primary endpoint of the study was rectum preservation at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Secondary endpoints were overall, disease-free, local and distant recurrence-free, and stoma-free survival at 3 years. RESULTS: Of the 178 patients enrolled in 16 centers, 112 (62.9%) were managed with local excision and 66 (37.1%) with watch-and-wait. At a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 36.1 (30.6-45.6) months, the rectum was preserved in 144 (80.9%) patients. The 3-year rectum-sparing, overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence-free survival, and distant recurrence-free survival was 80.6% (95% CI 73.9-85.8), 97.6% (95% CI 93.6-99.1), 90.0% (95% CI 84.3-93.7), 94.7% (95% CI 90.1-97.2), and 94.6% (95% CI 89.9-97.2), respectively. The 3-year stoma-free survival was 95.0% (95% CI 89.5-97.6). The 3-year regrowth-free survival in the watch-and-wait group was 71.8% (95% CI 59.9-81.2). CONCLUSIONS: In rectal cancer patients with major or complete clinical response after neoadjuvant therapy, the rectum can be preserved in about 80% of cases, without compromising the outcomes.