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.

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.

Radiofrequency vessel-sealing system versus the clamp-crushing technique in liver transection: results of a prospective randomized study on 100 consecutive patients.

BACKGROUND: Liver transection is considered a critical factor influencing intra-operative blood loss. A increase in the number of complex liver resections has determined a growing interest in new devices able to 'optimize' the liver transection. The aim of this randomized controlled study was to compare a radiofrequency vessel-sealing system with the 'gold-standard' clamp-crushing technique. METHODS: From January to December 2012, 100 consecutive patients undergoing a liver resection were randomized to the radiofrequency vessel-sealing system (LF1212 group; N = 50) or to the clamp-crushing technique (Kelly group, N = 50). RESULTS: Background characteristics of the two groups were similar. There were not significant differences between the two groups in terms of blood loss, transection time and transection speed. In spite of a not-significant larger transection area in the LF1212 group compared with the Kelly group (51.5 versus 39 cm(2) , P = 0.116), the overall and 'per cm(2) ' blood losses were similar whereas the transection speed was better (even if not significantly) in the LF1212 group compared with the Kelly group (1.1 cm(2) /min versus 0.8, P = 0.089). Mortality, morbidity and bile leak rates were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The radiofrequency vessel-sealing system allows a quick and safe liver transection similar to the gold-standard clamp-crushing technique.

The COVID - AGICT study: COVID-19 and advanced gastro-intestinal cancer surgical treatment. A multicentric Italian study on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic impact on gastro-intestinal cancers surgical treatment during the 2020. Analysis of perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes.

BACKGROUND: This Italian multicentric retrospective study aimed to investigate the possible changes in outcomes of patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: Our primary endpoint was to determine whether the pandemic scenario increased the rate of patients with colorectal, gastroesophageal, and pancreatic cancers resected at an advanced stage in 2020 compared to 2019. Considering different cancer staging systems, we divided tumors into early stages and advanced stages, using pathological outcomes. Furthermore, to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical outcomes, perioperative data of both 2020 and 2019 were also examined. RESULTS: Overall, a total of 8250 patients, 4370 (53%) and 3880 (47%) were surgically treated during 2019 and 2020 respectively, in 62 Italian surgical Units. In 2020, the rate of patients treated with an advanced pathological stage was not different compared to 2019 (P = 0.25). Nevertheless, the analysis of quarters revealed that in the second half of 2020 the rate of advanced cancer resected, tented to be higher compared with the same months of 2019 (P = 0.05). During the pandemic year 'Charlson Comorbidity Index score of cancer patients (5.38 ± 2.08 vs 5.28 ± 2.22, P = 0.036), neoadjuvant treatments (23.9% vs. 19.5%, P < 0.001), rate of urgent diagnosis (24.2% vs 20.3%, P < 0.001), colorectal cancer urgent resection (9.4% vs. 7.37, P < 0.001), and the rate of positive nodes on the total nodes resected per surgery increased significantly (7 vs 9% - 2.02 ± 4.21 vs 2.39 ± 5.23, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic did not influence the pathological stage of colorectal, gastroesophageal, and pancreatic cancers at the time of surgery, our study revealed that the pandemic scenario negatively impacted on several perioperative and post-operative outcomes.

Pathologic stage of ypT0N+ rectal cancers following neo-adjuvant treatment: clinical interpretation of an orphan status.

Approximately 20% of locally advanced rectal cancers treated with neoadjuvant therapy achieve a pathologic complete response, but approximately 10% of them present residual nodal metastases (ypT0N+). We aimed this research to compare the survival rates of ypT0/ypTisN+ and stage 3a rectal cancer patients. A large multicenter study recently investigated ypT0/ypTis rectal cancers treated between 2005 and 2015 in Italy and Spain. ypT0/ypTisN+ were selected and compared with stage 3a rectal cancers treated at the same institutions with upfront surgery (ySICO group). Additionally, the SEER database was searched for patients with stage 3a rectal cancers treated with surgery in the same years. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and disease-specific survival (DSS) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and random survival forest analysis (RSF). The ySICO study population consisted of 19 ypT0/2ypTisN+ (mean follow-up 41.8 months) and 72 Stage 3a patients (mean follow-up 56.9 months). These subgroups were comparable, but stage 3a patients were treated more frequently with adjuvant therapy (90.5% vs 61.9%, p 0.0001). No significant differences were reported between the ySICO subgroups for the OS, DFS, and DSS curves. When the 1213 SEER patients were added to Stage 3a, the RFS model failed to differentiate OS between groups that presented identical survival. Root analysis showed that adjuvant therapy was the only variable differentiating OS and DSS in the ySICO population. These findings suggest that ypT0/ypTisN+ and stage 3a rectal cancers could be ranked together based on their similar outcomes and pathologic assessment, and they stress the importance of adjuvant therapy in patients presenting with residual nodal metastases.

Number of lymph nodes assessed has no prognostic impact in node-negative rectal cancers after neoadjuvant therapy. Results of the "Italian Society of Surgical Oncology (S.I.C.O.) Colorectal Cancer Network" (SICO-CCN) multicentre collaborative study.

INTRODUCTION: We retrospectively investigated the impact of number or complete absence of nodes retrieved on survival of patients with rectal cancer (RC) treated with neoadjuvant radiation-therapy (NAT). METHODS: All patients with RC treated with NAT followed by curative surgery from 2000 to 2014 in 14 Italian referral Centres for Colorectal Surgery were enrolled. Information about number of nodes harvested, node ratio, type of radiation therapy schedule and tumour stage were recorded. Impact of number or complete absence of nodes retrieved on overall survival (OS) and on cumulative incidence of death for disease (CIDD) was assessed and factors influencing node yield were investigated. RESULTS: In total, 1407 patients were included. Mean number of nodes retrieved was 12.9, while no lymph nodes were found in only 32 patients (2%, ypNnull). Definite nodal stage was ypN0 in 1001 patients (71%) and ypN+ in 372 patients (27%). In multivariable analysis ypNnull patients showed worse OS and CIDD compared to both ypN0 and ypN+. In ypN0 patients, number of nodes assessed, stratified in 4 groups (<5, 5-10, 11-15 and > 15), did not significantly influence OS and CIDD. Long-course radiation schedule and early T stages negatively affected node assessment. CONCLUSION: Complete absence of nodes assessed was associated with worse prognosis compared to node-negative and node-positive patients. In node-negative patients number of nodes was not associated to OS and CIDD. Based on data from this large population of irradiated RC, number of nodes assessed has no prognostic impact in node-negative patients.