A Randomized Phase III Trial of Complete Mesocolic Excision Compared with Conventional Surgery for Right Colon Cancer: Interim Analysis of a Nationwide Multicenter Study of the Italian Society of Surgical Oncology Colorectal Cancer Network (CoME-in trial).

BACKGROUND: Although complete mesocolic excision (CME) is supposed to be associated with a higher lymph node (LN) yield, decreased local recurrence, and survival improvement, its implementation currently is debated because the evidence level of these data is rather low and still not supported by randomized controlled trials. METHOD: This is a multicenter, randomized, superiority trial (NCT04871399). The 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) was the primary end point of the study. The secondary end points were safety (duration of operation, perioperative complications, hospital length of stay), oncologic outcomes (number of LNs retrieved, 3- and 5-year overall survival, 5-year DFS), and surgery quality (specimen length, area and integrity rate of mesentery, length of ileocolic and middle-colic vessels). The trial design required the LN yield to be higher in the CME group at interim analysis. RESULTS: Interim data analysis is presented in this report. The study enrolled 258 patients in nine referral centers. The number of LNs retrieved was significantly higher after CME (25 vs. 20; p = 0.012). No differences were observed with respect to intra- or post-operative complications, postoperative mortality, or duration of surgery. The hospital stay was even shorter after CME (p = 0.039). Quality of surgery indicators were higher in the CME arm of the study. Survival data still were not available. CONCLUSIONS: Interim data show that CME for right colon cancer in referral centers is safe and feasible and does not increase perioperative complications. The study documented with evidence that quality of surgery and LN yield are higher after CME, and this is essential for continuation of patient recruitment and implementation of an optimal comparison. Trial registration The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the code NCT04871399 and with the acronym CoME-In trial.

Rivaroxaban vs placebo for extended antithrombotic prophylaxis after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.

The clinical benefit of extended prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE) after laparoscopic surgery for cancer is unclear. The efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants for this indication are unexplored. PROphylaxis of venous thromboembolism after LAParoscopic Surgery for colorectal cancer Study II (PROLAPS II) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, investigator-initiated, superiority study aimed at assessing the efficacy and safety of extended prophylaxis with rivaroxaban after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Consecutive patients who had laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer were randomized to receive rivaroxaban (10 mg once daily) or a placebo to be started at 7 ± 2 days after surgery and given for the subsequent 3 weeks. All patients received antithrombotic prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin from surgery to randomization. The primary study outcome was the composite of symptomatic objectively confirmed VTE, asymptomatic ultrasonography-detected deep vein thrombosis (DVT), or VTE-related death at 28 ± 2 days after surgery. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. Patient recruitment was prematurely closed due to study drug expiry after the inclusion of 582 of the 646 planned patients. A primary study outcome event occurred in 11 of 282 patients in the placebo group compared with 3 of 287 in the rivaroxaban group (3.9 vs 1.0%; odds ratio, 0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07-0.94; log-rank P = .032). Major bleeding occurred in none of the patients in the placebo group and 2 patients in the rivaroxaban group (incidence rate 0.7%; 95% CI, 0-1.0). Oral rivaroxaban was more effective than placebo for extended prevention of VTE after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer without an increase in major bleeding. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03055026.

Minimally invasive vs. open segmental resection of the splenic flexure for cancer: a nationwide study of the Italian Society of Surgical Oncology-Colorectal Cancer Network (SICO-CNN).

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the efficacy of minimally invasive (MI) segmental resection of splenic flexure cancer (SFC) is not available, mostly due to the rarity of this tumor. This study aimed to determine the survival outcomes of MI and open treatment, and to investigate whether MI is noninferior to open procedure regarding short-term outcomes. METHODS: This nationwide retrospective cohort study included all consecutive SFC segmental resections performed in 30 referral centers between 2006 and 2016. The primary endpoint assessing efficacy was the overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints included cancer-specific mortality (CSM), recurrence rate (RR), short-term clinical outcomes (a composite of Clavien-Dindo > 2 complications and 30-day mortality), and pathological outcomes (a composite of lymph nodes removed ≧12, and proximal and distal free resection margins length ≧ 5 cm). For these composites, a 6% noninferiority margin was chosen based on clinical relevance estimate. RESULTS: A total of 606 patients underwent either an open (208, 34.3%) or a MI (398, 65.7%) SFC segmental resection. At univariable analysis, OS and CSM were improved in the MI group (log-rank test p = 0.004 and Gray's tests p = 0.004, respectively), while recurrences were comparable (Gray's tests p = 0.434). Cox multivariable analysis did not support that OS and CSM were better in the MI group (p = 0.109 and p = 0.163, respectively). Successful pathological outcome, observed in 53.2% of open and 58.3% of MI resections, supported noninferiority (difference 5.1%; 1-sided 95%CI - 4.7% to ∞). Successful short-term clinical outcome was documented in 93.3% of Open and 93.0% of MI procedures, and supported noninferiority as well (difference - 0.3%; 1-sided 95%CI - 5.0% to ∞). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with SFC, the minimally invasive approach met the criterion for noninferiority for postoperative complications and pathological outcomes, and was found to provide results of OS, CSM, and RR comparable to those of open resection.

Rectal Sparing Approach After Neoadjuvant Therapy in Patients with Rectal Cancer: The Preliminary Results of the ReSARCh Trial.

BACKGROUND: Rectum-preservation for locally advanced rectal cancer has been proposed as an alternative to total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with major (mCR) or complete clinical response (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy. The purpose of this study was to report on the short-term outcomes of ReSARCh (Rectal Sparing Approach after preoperative Radio- and/or Chemotherapy) trial, which is a prospective, multicenter, observational trial that investigated the role of transanal local excision (LE) and watch-and-wait (WW) as integrated approaches after neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer. METHODS: Patients with mid-low rectal cancer who achieved mCR or cCR after neoadjuvant therapy and were fit for major surgery were enrolled. Clinical response was evaluated at 8 and 12 weeks after completion of chemoradiotherapy. Treatment approach, incidence, and reasons for subsequent TME were recorded. RESULTS: From 2016 to 2019, 160 patients were enrolled; mCR or cCR at 12 weeks was achieved in 64 and 96 of patients, respectively. Overall, 98 patients were managed with LE and 62 with WW. In the LE group, Clavien-Dindo 3+ complications occurred in three patients. The rate of cCR increased from 8- to 12-week restaging. Thirty-three (94.3%) of 35 patients with cCR had ypT0-1 tumor. At a median 24 months follow-up, a tumor regrowth was found in 15 (24.2%) patients undergoing WW. CONCLUSIONS: LE for patients achieving cCR or mCR is safe. A 12-week interval from chemoradiotherapy completion to LE is correlated with an increased cCR rate. The risk of ypT > is reduced when LE is performed after cCR.

Management and 1-year outcomes of anastomotic leakage after elective colorectal surgery.

PURPOSE: To analyze different types of management and one-year outcomes of anastomotic leakage (AL) after elective colorectal resection. METHODS: All patients with anastomotic leakage after elective colorectal surgery with anastomosis (76/1,546; 4.9%), with the exclusion of cases with proximal diverting stoma, were followed-up for at least one year. Primary endpoints were as follows: composite outcome of one-year mortality and/or unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admission and additional morbidity rates. Secondary endpoints were as follows: length of stay (LOS), one-year persistent stoma rate, and rate of return to intended oncologic therapy (RIOT). RESULTS: One-year mortality rate was 10.5% and unplanned ICU admission rate was 30.3%. Risk factors of the composite outcome included age (aOR = 1.08 per 1-year increase, p = 0.002) and anastomotic breakdown with end stoma at reoperation (aOR = 2.77, p = 0.007). Additional morbidity rate was 52.6%: risk factors included open versus laparoscopic reoperation (aOR = 4.38, p = 0.03) and ICU admission (aOR = 3.63, p = 0.05). Median (IQR) overall LOS was 20 days (14-26), higher in the subgroup of patients reoperated without stoma. At 1 year, a stoma persisted in 32.0% of patients, higher in the open (41.2%) versus laparoscopic (12.5%) reoperation group (p = 0.04). Only 4 out of 18 patients (22.2%) were able to RIOT. CONCLUSION: Mortality and/or unplanned ICU admission rates after AL are influenced by increasing age and by anastomotic breakdown at reoperation; additional morbidity rates are influenced by unplanned ICU admission and by laparoscopic approach to reoperation, the latter also reducing permanent stoma and failure to RIOT rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT03560180.

The genomic landscape of response to EGFR blockade in colorectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide, with 1.2 million patients diagnosed annually. In late-stage colorectal cancer, the most commonly used targeted therapies are the monoclonal antibodies cetuximab and panitumumab, which prevent epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) activation. Recent studies have identified alterations in KRAS and other genes as likely mechanisms of primary and secondary resistance to anti-EGFR antibody therapy. Despite these efforts, additional mechanisms of resistance to EGFR blockade are thought to be present in colorectal cancer and little is known about determinants of sensitivity to this therapy. To examine the effect of somatic genetic changes in colorectal cancer on response to anti-EGFR antibody therapy, here we perform complete exome sequence and copy number analyses of 129 patient-derived tumour grafts and targeted genomic analyses of 55 patient tumours, all of which were KRAS wild-type. We analysed the response of tumours to anti-EGFR antibody blockade in tumour graft models and in clinical settings and functionally linked therapeutic responses to mutational data. In addition to previously identified genes, we detected mutations in ERBB2, EGFR, FGFR1, PDGFRA, and MAP2K1 as potential mechanisms of primary resistance to this therapy. Novel alterations in the ectodomain of EGFR were identified in patients with acquired resistance to EGFR blockade. Amplifications and sequence changes in the tyrosine kinase receptor adaptor gene IRS2 were identified in tumours with increased sensitivity to anti-EGFR therapy. Therapeutic resistance to EGFR blockade could be overcome in tumour graft models through combinatorial therapies targeting actionable genes. These analyses provide a systematic approach to evaluating response to targeted therapies in human cancer, highlight new mechanisms of responsiveness to anti-EGFR therapies, and delineate new avenues for intervention in managing colorectal cancer.

ICG fluorescence imaging in colorectal surgery: a snapshot from the ICRAL study group.

BACKGROUND: Fluorescence-guided visualization is a recently proposed technology in colorectal surgery. Possible uses include evaluating perfusion, navigating lymph nodes and searching for hepatic metastases and peritoneal spread. Despite the absence of high-level evidence, this technique has gained considerable popularity among colorectal surgeons due to its significant reliability, safety, ease of use and relatively low cost. However, the actual use of this technique in daily clinical practice has not been reported to date. METHODS: This survey was conducted on April 2020 among 44 centers dealing with colorectal diseases and participating in the Italian ColoRectal Anastomotic Leakage (iCral) study group. Surgeons were approximately equally divided based on geographical criteria from multiple Italian regions, with a large proportion based in public (89.1%) and nonacademic (75.7%) centers. They were invited to answer an online survey to snapshot their current behaviors regarding the use of fluorescence-guided visualization in colorectal surgery. Questions regarding technological availability, indications and techniques, personal approaches and feelings were collected in a 23-item questionnaire. RESULTS: Questionnaire replies were received from 37 institutions and partially answered by 8, as this latter group of centers do not implement fluorescence technology (21.6%). Out of the remaining 29 centers (78,4%), fluorescence is utilized in all laparoscopic colorectal resections by 72.4% of surgeons and only for selected cases by the remaining 27.6%, while 62.1% of respondents do not use fluorescence in open surgery (unless the perfusion is macroscopically uncertain with the naked eye, in which case 41.4% of them do). The survey also suggests that there is no agreement on dilution, dosing and timing, as many different practices are adopted based on personal judgment. Only approximately half of the surgeons reported a reduced leak rate with fluorescence perfusion assessment, but 65.5% of them strongly believe that this technique will become a minimum requirement for colorectal surgery in the future. CONCLUSION: The survey confirms that fluorescence is becoming a widely used technique in colorectal surgery. However, both the indications and methods still vary considerably; furthermore, the surgeons' perceptions of the results are insufficient to consider this technology essential. This survey emphasizes the need for further research to reach recommendations based on solid scientific evidence.

Surgical Quality Assurance in COLOR III: Standardization and Competency Assessment in a Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop an objective and reliable surgical quality assurance system (SQA) for COLOR III, an international multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) with laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer. BACKGROUND OF SUMMARY DATA: SQA influences outcome measures in RCTs such as lymph nodes harvest, in-hospital mortality, and locoregional cancer recurrence. However, levels of SQA are variable. METHOD: Hierarchical task analysis of TaTME was performed. A 4-round Delphi methodology was applied for standardization of TaTME steps. Semistructured interviews were conducted in round 1 to identify key steps and tasks, which were rated as mandatory, optional, or prohibited in rounds 2 to 4 using questionnaires. Competency assessment tool (CAT) was developed and its content validity was examined by expert surgeons. Twenty unedited videos were assessed to test reliability using generalizability theory. RESULTS: Eighty-three of 101 surgical tasks identified reached 70% agreement (26 mandatory, 56 optional, and 1 prohibited). An operative guide of standardized TaTME was created. CAT is matrix of 9 steps and 4 performance qualities: exposure, execution, adverse event, and end-product. The overall G-coefficient was 0.883. Inter-rater and interitem reliability were 0.883 and 0.986. To enter COLOR III, 2 unedited TaTME and 1 laparoscopic TME videos were submitted and assessed by 2 independent assessors using CAT. CONCLUSION: We described an iterative approach to develop an objective SQA within multicenter RCT. This approach provided standardization, the development of reliable and valid CAT, and the criteria for trial entry and monitoring surgical performance during the trial.

Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis after laparoscopic left colectomy for splenic flexure cancer: results from a multi-institutional audit on 181 consecutive patients.

Although intracorporeal anastomosis has been demonstrated to be safe and effective after right colectomy, limited data are available about its efficacy after left colectomy for colon cancer located in splenic flexure. A multi-institutional audit was designed, including 92 patients who underwent laparoscopic left colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) compared with 89 matched patients who underwent a laparoscopic left colectomy with extracorporeal anastomosis (EA). There was no significant difference in terms of age, sex, BMI, and ASA score between the two groups. Post-surgical history and stage of disease according to AJCC/UICC TNM were also similar. IA and EA groups demonstrated similar oncologic radicality in terms of the number of lymph nodes harvested (18.5 ± 9 vs. 17.5 ± 8.4; p = 0.48). Recovery after surgery was also better in patients who underwent IA, as confirmed by the shorter time to flatus in the IA group (2.6 ± 1.1 days vs. 3.4 ± 1.2 days; p < 0.001) and higher post-operative pain expressed in the mean VAS Scale in the EA group (1.7 ± 2.1 vs. 3.5 ± 1.6; p < 0.001). Laparoscopic left colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis was associated with a lower rate of post-operative complications (OR 6.7, 95% CI 2.2-20; p = 0.001). However, when stratifying according to Clavien classification, the difference was consistently confirmed for less severe (class I and II) complications (OR 7.6, 95% CI 2.5-23, p = 0.001) but not for class III, IV, and V complications (OR 1.8, 95% CI 0.1-16.9; p = 0.59). Our results were consistent to hypothesize that a complete laparoscopic approach could be considered a safe method to perform laparoscopic left colectomy with the advantage of a guaranteed faster recovery after surgery. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to obtain a more definitive conclusion.