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.

A Cost Overview of Minimally Invasive Total Mesorectal Excision in Rectal Cancer Patients: A Population-based Cohort in Experienced Centres.

Background: Total mesorectal excision has been the gold standard for the operative management of rectal cancer. The most frequently used minimally invasive techniques for surgical resection of rectal cancer are laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal excision. As studies comparing the costs of the techniques are lacking, this study aims to provide a cost overview. Method: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent total mesorectal resection between 2015 and 2017 at 11 dedicated centers, which completed the learning curve of the specific technique. The primary outcome was total in-hospital costs of each technique up to 30 days after surgery including all major surgical cost drivers, while taking into account different team approaches in the transanal approach. Secondary outcomes were hospitalization and complication rates. Statistical analysis was performed using multivariable linear regression analysis. Results: In total, 949 patients were included, consisting of 446 laparoscopic (47%), 306 (32%) robot-assisted, and 197 (21%) transanal total mesorectal excisions. Total costs were significantly higher for transanal and robot-assisted techniques compared to the laparoscopic technique, with median (interquartile range) for laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal at €10,556 (8,642;13,829), €12,918 (11,196;16,223), and € 13,052 (11,330;16,358), respectively (P < 0.001). Also, the one-team transanal approach showed significant higher operation time and higher costs compared to the two-team approach. Length of stay and postoperative complications did not differ between groups. Conclusion: Transanal and robot-assisted approaches show higher costs during 30-day follow-up compared to laparoscopy with comparable short-term clinical outcomes. Two-team transanal approach is associated with lower total costs compared to the transanal one-team approach.

Economic analysis of open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer patients: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Minimally invasive total mesorectal excision is increasingly being used as an alternative to open surgery in the treatment of patients with rectal cancer. This systematic review aimed to compare the total, operative and hospitalization costs of open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision. METHODS: This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA) (S1 File) A literature review was conducted (end-of-search date: January 1, 2023) and quality assessment performed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria. RESULTS: 12 studies were included, reporting on 2542 patients (226 open, 1192 laparoscopic, 998 robot-assisted and 126 transanal total mesorectal excision). Total costs of minimally invasive total mesorectal excision were higher compared to the open technique in the majority of included studies. For robot-assisted total mesorectal excision, higher operative costs and lower hospitalization costs were reported compared to the open and laparoscopic technique. A meta-analysis could not be performed due to low study quality and a high level of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was caused by differences in the learning curve and statistical methods used. CONCLUSION: Literature regarding costs of total mesorectal excision techniques is limited in quality and number. Available evidence suggests minimally invasive techniques may be more expensive compared to open total mesorectal excision. High-quality economical evaluations, accounting for the learning curve, are needed to properly assess costs of the different techniques.

Cost analysis and cost-effectiveness of open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in patients with rectal cancer: a protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Nowadays, most rectal tumours are treated open or minimally invasive, using laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal total mesorectal excision. However, insight into the total costs of these techniques is limited. Since all three techniques are currently being performed, including cost considerations in the choice of treatment technique may significantly impact future healthcare costs. Therefore, this systematic review aims to provide an overview of evidence regarding costs in patients with rectal cancer following open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic search will be conducted for papers between January 2000 and March 2022. Databases PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases will be searched. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed independently by four reviewers and discrepancies will be resolved through discussion. The Consensus Health Economic Criteria list will be used for assessing risk of bias. Total costs of the different techniques, consisting of but not limited to, theatre, in-hospital and postoperative costs, will be the primary outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required, as there is no collection of patient data at an individual level. Findings will be disseminated widely, through peer-reviewed publication and presentation at relevant national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021261125.

A Bayesian approach for diagnostic accuracy of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNST) carry a dismal prognosis and require early detection and complete resection. However, MPNSTs are prone to sampling errors and biopsies or resections are cumbersome and possibly damaging in benign peripheral nerve sheath tumor (BPNST). This study aimed to systematically review and quantify the diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive tests for distinguishing MPNST from BPNST. METHODS: Studies on accuracy of MRI, FDG-PET (fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography), and liquid biopsies were identified in PubMed and Embase from 2000 to 2019. Pooled accuracies were calculated using Bayesian bivariate meta-analyses. Individual level-patient data were analyzed for ideal maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) threshold on FDG-PET. RESULTS: Forty-three studies were selected for qualitative synthesis including data on 1875 patients and 2939 lesions. Thirty-five studies were included for meta-analyses. For MRI, the absence of target sign showed highest sensitivity (0.99, 95% CI: 0.94-1.00); ill-defined margins (0.94, 95% CI: 0.88-0.98); and perilesional edema (0.95, 95% CI: 0.83-1.00) showed highest specificity. For FDG-PET, SUVmax and tumor-to-liver ratio show similar accuracy; sensitivity 0.94, 95% CI: 0.91-0.97 and 0.93, 95% CI: 0.87-0.97, respectively, specificity 0.81, 95% CI: 0.76-0.87 and 0.79, 95% CI: 0.70-0.86, respectively. SUVmax ≥3.5 yielded the best accuracy with a sensitivity of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.93-1.00) and specificity of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.56-0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Biopsies may be omitted in the presence of a target sign and the absence of ill-defined margins or perilesional edema. Because of diverse radiological characteristics of MPNST, biopsies may still commonly be required. In neurofibromatosis type 1, FDG-PET scans may further reduce biopsies. Ideal SUVmax threshold is ≥3.5.