Towards Equal Access to Cytoreductive Surgery with Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy and Survival in Patients with Isolated Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases: A Nationwide Population-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: Before 2016, patients with isolated synchronous colorectal peritoneal metastases (PMCRC) diagnosed in expert centers had a higher odds of undergoing cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) and better overall survival (OS) than those diagnosed in referring centers. Nationwide efforts were initiated to increase awareness and improve referral networks. METHODS: This nationwide study aimed to evaluate whether the between-center differences in odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC and OS have reduced since these national efforts were initiated. All patients with isolated synchronous PMCRC diagnosed between 2009 and 2021 were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Associations between hospital of diagnosis and the odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC, as well as OS, were assessed using multilevel multivariable regression analyses for two periods (2009-2015 and 2016-2021). RESULTS: In total, 3948 patients were included. The percentage of patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC increased from 17.2% in 2009-2015 (25.4% in expert centers, 16.5% in referring centers), to 23.4% in 2016-2021 (30.2% in expert centers, 22.6% in referring centers). In 2009-2015, compared with diagnosis in a referring center, diagnosis in a HIPEC center showed a higher odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC (odds ratio [OR] 1.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-2.67) and better survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.80, 95% CI 0.66-0.96). In 2016-2021, there were no differences in the odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC between patients diagnosed in HIPEC centers versus referring centers (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.76-2.13) and survival (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.76-1.32). CONCLUSION: Previously observed differences in odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC were no longer present. Increased awareness and the harmonization of treatment for PMCRC may have contributed to equal access to care and a similar chance of survival at a national level.

Survival of Patients with Deficient Mismatch Repair Versus Proficient Mismatch Repair Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Receiving Curative-Intent Local Treatment of Metastases in a Nationwide Cohort.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether curative-intent local therapy of metastases is of similar benefit for the biological distinct subgroup of patients with deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) compared with proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) mCRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this nationwide study, recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed in patients with dMMR versus pMMR mCRC who underwent curative-intent local treatment of metastases between 2015 and 2018. Subgroup analyses were performed for resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) and cytoreductive surgery ± hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS ± HIPEC). Multivariable regression was conducted. RESULTS: Median RFS was 11.1 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.5-41.1 months] for patients with dMMR tumors compared with 8.9 months (95% CI 8.1-9.8 months) for pMMR tumors. Two-year RFS was higher in patients with dMMR versus pMMR (43% vs. 21%). Results were similar within subgroups of local treatment (CRLM and CRS ± HIPEC). Characteristics differed significantly between patients with dMMR and pMMR mCRC; however, multivariable analysis continued to demonstrate dMMR as independent factor for improved RFS [hazard ratio (HR): 0.57, 95% CI 0.38-0.87]. Median OS was 33.3 months for dMMR mCRC compared with 43.5 months for pMMR mCRC, mainly due to poor survival of patients with dMMR in cases of recurrence in the preimmunotherapy era. CONCLUSION: Patients with dMMR eligible for curative-intent local treatment of metastases showed a comparable to more favorable RFS compared with patients with pMMR, with a clinically relevant proportion of patients remaining free of recurrence. This supports local treatment as a valuable treatment option in patients with dMMR mCRC and can aid in shared decision-making regarding upfront local therapy versus immunotherapy.

Timing of rectal cancer surgery after short-course radiotherapy: national database study.

BACKGROUND: Previous randomized trials found that a prolonged interval between short-course radiotherapy (SCRT, 25 Gy in 5 fractions) and surgery for rectal cancer (4-8 weeks, SCRT-delay) results in a lower postoperative complication rate and a higher pCR rate than SCRT and surgery within a week (SCRT-direct surgery). This study sought to confirm these results in a Dutch national database. METHODS: Patients with intermediate-risk rectal cancer (T3(mesorectal fascia (MRF)-) N0 M0 and T1-3(MRF-) N1 M0) treated with either SCRT-delay (4-12 weeks) or SCRT-direct surgery in 2018-2021 were selected from a Dutch national colorectal cancer database. Confounders were adjusted for using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). The primary endpoint was the 90-day postoperative complication rate. Secondary endpoints included the pCR rate. Endpoints were compared using log-binomial and Poisson regression. RESULTS: Some 664 patients were included in the SCRT-direct surgery and 238 in the SCRT-delay group. After IPTW, the 90-day postoperative complication rate was comparable after SCRT-direct surgery and SCRT-delay (40.1 versus 42.3 per cent; risk ratio (RR) 1.1, 95 per cent c.i. 0.9 to 1.3). A pCR occurred more often after SCRT-delay than SCRT-direct surgery (10.7 versus 0.4 per cent; RR 39, 11 to 139). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in surgical complication rates between SCRT-delay and SCRT-direct, but SCRT-delay was associated with more patients having a pCR.

Towards patient-led follow-up after curative surgical resection of stage I, II and III colorectal cancer (DISTANCE-trial): a study protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the most frequently diagnosed cancers. Approximately 20-30% of stage I-III CRC patients develop a recurrent tumour or metastases after curative surgical resection. Post-operative follow-up is indicated for the first five years after curative surgical resection. As intensified follow-up after curative surgical resection has shown no effect on survival, patient organisations and policy makers have advocated for a more patient-centred approach to follow-up. The objective of this study is to successfully implement patient-led, home-based follow-up (PHFU) in six hospitals in The Netherlands, with as ultimate aim to come to a recommendation for a patient-centred follow-up schedule for stage I-III CRC patients treated with surgical resection with curative intent. METHODS: This study is designed as a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial (SW-CRT) in six participating centres. During the trial, three centres will implement PHFU after six months; the other three centres will implement PHFU after 12 months of inclusion in the control group. Eligible patients are those with pT2-4N0M0 or pT1-4N1-2M0 CRC, who are 18 years or older and have been free of disease for 12 months after curative surgical resection. The studied intervention is PHFU, starting 12 months after curative resection. The in-hospital, standard-of-care follow-up currently implemented in the participating centres functions as the comparator. The proportion of patients who had contact with the hospital regarding CRC follow-up between 12-24 months after curative surgical resection is the primary endpoint of this study. Quality of life, fear of cancer recurrence, patient satisfaction, cost-effectiveness and survival are the secondary endpoints. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will provide evidence on whether nationwide implementation of PHFU for CRC in The Netherlands will be successful in reducing contact between patient and health care provider. Comparison of PROMs between in-hospital follow-up and PHFU will be provided. Moreover, the cost-effectiveness of PHFU will be assessed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trail Register (NTR): NL9266 (Registered on January 1st, 2021).

Work Ability in Patients With Stage I to IV Colon Cancer: Results of the Dutch Prospective Colorectal Cancer Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Colon cancer affects a patient's ability to work. Many patients who have colon cancer are employed at the time of diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated work ability during the first 2 years after colon cancer diagnosis. DESIGN: This study is a national prospective study, the Prospective Dutch ColoRectal Cancer cohort, including clinical data and patient-reported outcomes. SETTINGS: Data were collected in 59 medical centers in the Netherlands. PATIENTS: Patients <67 years of age with stage I to IV colon cancer and who completed Work Ability Index questionnaires were selected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Work ability was assessed at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. The Work Ability Index (range, 0 to 49) was evaluated using linear mixed models. Outcomes were matched to population controls without cancer. RESULTS: Of 390 patients, 84% had paid employment. Work ability of patients with stage I to IV colon cancer was significantly lower at the time of diagnosis than in matched population controls (31 ± 8.2 and 41 ± 5.6). Patients with stage I to III disease receiving surgery only regained Work Ability Index scores comparable to matched population controls at 18 months. Patients receiving adjuvant systemic treatment initially demonstrated a decrease in work ability with improvements from 6 months onward and normalization at 24 months. Patients with stage IV disease did not demonstrate improvements in work ability outcomes over time. Work ability scores were negatively influenced by the administration of systemic treatment and ≥1 comorbidities. LIMITATIONS: Only patients with patient-reported outcomes and work at baseline were included in this analysis. Also, questionnaire response rates decreased over time. CONCLUSIONS: Work ability in patients with colon cancer is decreased for a prolonged time. Recovery depends on disease stage, type of treatment, and comorbidities. Patients with stage I to III disease treated with curative surgery alone were the first to regain work ability, followed by patients who receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with stage IV disease did not regain work ability. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B759 . CAPACIDAD LABORAL EN PACIENTES CON CNCER DE COLON EN ESTADIO IIV RESULTADOS PROSPECTIVOS DE CNCER COLORECTAL EN UNA COHORTE HOLANDESA: ANTECEDENTES:El cáncer de colon afecta la capacidad de trabajo en un paciente. Muchos pacientes con cáncer de colon están empleados en el momento del diagnóstico.OBJETIVO:Evaluamos la capacidad laboral durante los dos primeros años posteriores al diagnóstico de cáncer de colon.DISEÑO:Es un estudio prospectivo nacional, la cohorte de cáncer colorrectal holandés, incluye datos clínicos y resultados informados por los pacientes.ENTORNO CLINICO:Se recopilaron datos de 59 centros médicos en los Países Bajos.PACIENTES:Se seleccionaron pacientes < 67 años, con cáncer de colon en estadio I-IV, que completaron los cuestionarios de índice de capacidad para el trabajo.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACIÓN:La capacidad para el trabajo se evaluó al inicio, a los 3, 6, 12, 18 y 24 meses. El índice de capacidad para el trabajo (que va de 0 a 49) se evaluó mediante modelos lineales mixtos. Los resultados fueron comparados con el grupo control sin cáncer.RESULTADOS:De 390 pacientes, el 84% tenía un empleo remunerado. La capacidad de trabajo de los pacientes en estadio I-IV fue significativamente menor en el momento del diagnóstico en comparación con el grupo control (31 ± 8,2 y 41 ± 5,6, respectivamente). Los pacientes con enfermedad en estadio I-III que recibieron cirugía lograron recuperar puntajes del índice de capacidad laboral comparables a los controles a los 18 meses. Los pacientes que recibieron tratamiento sistémico adyuvante inicialmente demostraron una disminución en la capacidad de trabajo con mejoras a partir de los 6 meses en adelante y una normalización a los 24 meses. Los pacientes en estadio IV no demostraron mejoras en los resultados de la capacidad laboral a lo largo del tiempo. Las puntuaciones de capacidad para el trabajo se vieron influidas negativamente por la administración del tratamiento sistémico y la existencia de ≥1 comorbilidades.LIMITACIONES:En este análisis solo se incluyeron los pacientes con resultados y trabajo desde el inicio del estudio. Además, las tasas de respuesta al cuestionario disminuyeron con el tiempo.CONCLUSIONES:La capacidad de trabajo en pacientes con cáncer de colon se reduce durante un tiempo prolongado. La recuperación depende del estadio de la enfermedad, el tipo de tratamiento y la comorbilidad. Los pacientes con enfermedad en estadio I-III tratados con cirugía curativa exclusivamente, son los primeros en recuperar la capacidad para trabajar, seguidos de los pacientes que reciben quimioterapia adyuvante. Los pacientes con enfermedad en estadio IV no recuperan la capacidad para trabajar. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B759 . (Traducción- Dr. Ingrid Melo ).

Patient- and physician-reported radiation-induced toxicity of short-course radiotherapy with a prolonged interval to surgery for rectal cancer.

AIM: A prolonged interval (>4 weeks) between short-course radiotherapy (25 Gy in five fractions) (SCRT-delay) and total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer has been associated with a decreased postoperative complication rate and offers the possibility of organ preservation in the case of a complete tumour response. This prospective cohort study systematically evaluated patient-reported bowel dysfunction and physician-reported radiation-induced toxicity for 8 weeks following SCRT-delay. METHOD: Patients who were referred for SCRT-delay for intermediate risk, oligometastatic or locally advanced rectal cancer were included. Repeated measurements were done for patient-reported bowel dysfunction (measured by the low anterior resection syndrome [LARS] questionnaire and categorized as no, minor or major LARS) and physician-reported radiation-induced toxicity (according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0) before start of treatment (baseline), at completion of SCRT and 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 weeks thereafter. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were included; 31 (61%) were men and the median age was 67 years (range 44-91). Patient-reported bowel dysfunction and physician-reported radiation-induced toxicity peaked at weeks 1-2 after completion of SCRT and gradually declined thereafter. Major LARS was reported by 44 patients (92%) at some time during SCRT-delay. Grade 3 radiation-induced toxicity was reported in 17 patients (33%) and concerned predominantly diarrhoea. No Grade 4-5 radiation-induced toxicity occurred. CONCLUSION: During SCRT-delay, almost every patient experiences temporary mild-moderate radiation-induced toxicity and major LARS, but life-threatening toxicity is rare. SCRT-delay is a safe alternative to SCRT-direct surgery that should be proposed when counselling rectal cancer patients on neoadjuvant strategies.

Colonoscopic-Assisted Laparoscopic Wedge Resection for Colonic Lesions: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study (LIMERIC-Study).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a modified CAL-WR. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The use of segmental colectomy in patients with endoscopically unresectable colonic lesions results in significant morbidity and mortality. CAL-WR is an alternative procedure that may reduce morbidity. METHODS: This prospective multicenter study was performed in 13 Dutch hospitals between January 2017 and December 2019. Inclusion criteria were (1) colonic lesions inaccessible using current endoscopic resection techniques (judged by an expert panel), (2) non-lifting residual/recurrent adenomatous tissue after previous polypectomy or (3) an undetermined resection margin after endoscopic removal of a low-risk pathological T1 (pT1) colon carcinoma. Thirty-day morbidity, technical success rate and radicality were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 118 patients included (56% male, mean age 66 years, standard deviation ± 8 years), 66 (56%) had complex lesions unsuitable for endoscopic removal, 34 (29%) had non-lifting residual/recurrent adenoma after previous polypectomy and 18 (15%) had uncertain resection margins after polypectomy of a pT1 colon carcinoma. CAL-WR was technically successful in 93% and R0 resection was achieved in 91% of patients. Minor complications (Clavien-Dindo i-ii) were noted in 7 patients (6%) and an additional oncologic segmental resection was performed in 12 cases (11%). Residual tissue at the scar was observed in 5% of patients during endoscopic follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: CAL-WR is an effective, organ-preserving approach that results in minor complications and circumvents the need for major surgery. CAL-WR, therefore, deserves consideration when endoscopic excision of circumscribed lesions is impossible or incomplete.

Impact of surgical versus endoscopic management of complex nonmalignant polyps in a colorectal cancer screening program.

BACKGROUND: When complex nonmalignant polyps are detected in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs, patients may be referred directly to surgery or may first undergo additional endoscopy for attempted endoscopic removal by an expert. We compared the impact of both strategies on screening effectiveness and costs. METHODS: We used MISCAN-Colon to simulate the Dutch screening program, and projected CRC deaths prevented, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and costs for two scenarios: 1) surgery for all complex nonmalignant polyps; 2) attempted removal by an expert endoscopist first. We made the following assumptions: 3.9 % of screen-detected large nonmalignant polyps were complex; associated surgery mortality was 0.7 %; the rate of successful removal by an expert was 87 %, with 0.11 % mortality. RESULTS: The screening program was estimated to prevent 11.2 CRC cases (-16.7 %) and 10.1 CRC deaths (-27.1 %), resulting in 32.9 QALYs gained (+ 17.2 %) per 1000 simulated individuals over their lifetimes compared with no screening. The program would also result in 2.1 surgeries for complex nonmalignant polyps with 0.015 associated deaths per 1000 individuals. If, instead, these patients were referred to an expert endoscopist first, only 0.2 patients required surgery, reducing associated deaths by 0.013 at the expense of 0.003 extra colonoscopy deaths. Compared with direct referral to surgery, referral to an expert endoscopist gained 0.2 QALYs and saved €12 500 per 1000 individuals in the target population. CONCLUSION: Referring patients with complex polyps to an expert endoscopist first reduced some surgery-related deaths while substantially improving cost-effectiveness of the screening program.

External validation of the MSKCC nomogram to estimate five-year overall survival after surgery for stage I-III colon cancer in a Dutch population.

INTRODUCTION: The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC) nomogram has been developed to estimate five-year overall survival (OS) after curative-intent surgery of colon cancer based on age, sex, T stage, differentiation grade, number of positive and examined regional lymph nodes. This is the first evaluation of the performance of the MSKCC model in a European population regarding prediction of OS. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Population-based data from patients with stage I-III colon cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2016 were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) for external validation of the MSKCC prediction model. Five-year survival probabilities were estimated for all patients in our dataset by using the MSKCC prediction equation. Histogram density plots were created to depict the distribution of the estimated probability and prognostic index. The performance of the model was evaluated in terms of its overall performance, discrimination, and calibration. RESULTS: A total of 39,805 patients were included. Five-year OS was 71.9% (95% CI 71.5; 72.3) (11,051 events) with a median follow up of 5.6 years (IQR 4.1; 7.7). The Brier score was 0.10 (95% CI 0.10; 0.10). The C-index was 0.75 (95% CI 0.75; 0.76). The calibration measures and plot indicated that the model slightly overestimated observed mortality (observed/expected ratio = 0.86 [95% CI 0.86; 0.87], calibration intercept = -0.14 [95% CI -0.16; -0.11], and slope 1.07 [95% CI 1.05; 1.09], ICI = 0.04, E50 = 0.04, and E90 = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The external validation of the MSKCC prediction nomogram in a large Dutch cohort supports the use of this practical tool in the European patient population. These personalised estimated survival probabilities may support clinicians when informing patients about prognosis. Adding potential relevant prognostic factors to the model, such as primary tumour location, might further improve the model.

Superiority of Step-up Approach vs Open Necrosectomy in Long-term Follow-up of Patients With Necrotizing Pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In a 2010 randomized trial (the PANTER trial), a surgical step-up approach for infected necrotizing pancreatitis was found to reduce the composite endpoint of death or major complications compared with open necrosectomy; 35% of patients were successfully treated with simple catheter drainage only. There is concern, however, that minimally invasive treatment increases the need for reinterventions for residual peripancreatic necrotic collections and other complications during the long term. We therefore performed a long-term follow-up study. METHODS: We reevaluated all the 73 patients (of the 88 patients randomly assigned to groups) who were still alive after the index admission, at a mean 86 months (±11 months) of follow-up. We collected data on all clinical and health care resource utilization endpoints through this follow-up period. The primary endpoint was death or major complications (the same as for the PANTER trial). We also measured exocrine insufficiency, quality of life (using the Short Form-36 and EuroQol 5 dimensions forms), and Izbicki pain scores. RESULTS: From index admission to long-term follow-up, 19 patients (44%) died or had major complications in the step-up group compared with 33 patients (73%) in the open-necrosectomy group (P = .005). Significantly lower proportions of patients in the step-up group had incisional hernias (23% vs 53%; P = .004), pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (29% vs 56%; P = .03), or endocrine insufficiency (40% vs 64%; P = .05). There were no significant differences between groups in proportions of patients requiring additional drainage procedures (11% vs 13%; P = .99) or pancreatic surgery (11% vs 5%; P = .43), or in recurrent acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis, Izbicki pain scores, or medical costs. Quality of life increased during follow-up without a significant difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of long-term outcomes of trial participants, we found the step-up approach for necrotizing pancreatitis to be superior to open necrosectomy, without increased risk of reinterventions.

Bimanual Fundamentals: Validation of a New Curriculum for Virtual Reality Training of Laparoscopic Skills.

Background. To determine face and construct validity for the new Bimanual Fundamentals curriculum for the Simendo® Virtual Reality Laparoscopy Simulator and prove its efficiency as a training and objective assessment tool for surgical resident's advanced psychomotor skills. Methods. 49 participants were recruited: 17 medical students (novices), 15 residents (intermediates), and 17 medical specialists (experts) in the field of gynecology, general surgery, and urology in 3 tertiary medical centers in the Netherlands. All participants performed the 5 exercises of the curriculum for 3 consecutive times on the simulator. Intermediates and experts filled in a questionnaire afterward, regarding the reality of the simulator and training goals of each exercise. Statistical analysis of performance was performed between novices, intermediates, and experts. Parameters such as task time, collisions/displacements, and path length right and left were compared between groups. Additionally, a total performance score was calculated for each participant. Results. Face validity scores regarding realism and training goals were overall positive (median scores of 4 on a 5-point Likert scale). Participants felt that the curriculum was a useful addition to the previous curricula and the used simulator would fit in their residency programs. Construct validity results showed significant differences on the great majority of measured parameters between groups. The simulator is able to differentiate between performers with different levels of laparoscopic experience. Conclusions. Face and construct validity for the new Bimanual Fundamental curriculum for the Simendo virtual reality simulator could be established. The curriculum is suitable to use in resident's training programs to improve and maintain advanced psychomotor skills.

Endoscopic or surgical step-up approach for infected necrotising pancreatitis: a multicentre randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Infected necrotising pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease and an indication for invasive intervention. The surgical step-up approach is the standard treatment. A promising alternative is the endoscopic step-up approach. We compared both approaches to see whether the endoscopic step-up approach was superior to the surgical step-up approach in terms of clinical and economic outcomes. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, superiority trial, we recruited adult patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis and an indication for invasive intervention from 19 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were randomly assigned to either the endoscopic or the surgical step-up approach. The endoscopic approach consisted of endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage followed, if necessary, by endoscopic necrosectomy. The surgical approach consisted of percutaneous catheter drainage followed, if necessary, by video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement. The primary endpoint was a composite of major complications or death during 6-month follow-up. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN09186711. FINDINGS: Between Sept 20, 2011, and Jan 29, 2015, we screened 418 patients with pancreatic or extrapancreatic necrosis, of which 98 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach (n=51) or the surgical step-up approach (n=47). The primary endpoint occurred in 22 (43%) of 51 patients in the endoscopy group and in 21 (45%) of 47 patients in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR] 0·97, 95% CI 0·62-1·51; p=0·88). Mortality did not differ between groups (nine [18%] patients in the endoscopy group vs six [13%] patients in the surgery group; RR 1·38, 95% CI 0·53-3·59, p=0·50), nor did any of the major complications included in the primary endpoint. INTERPRETATION: In patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing major complications or death. The rate of pancreatic fistulas and length of hospital stay were lower in the endoscopy group. The outcome of this trial will probably result in a shift to the endoscopic step-up approach as treatment preference. FUNDING: The Dutch Digestive Disease Foundation, Fonds NutsOhra, and the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development.

Second and third look laparoscopy in pT4 colon cancer patients for early detection of peritoneal metastases; the COLOPEC 2 randomized multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20-30% of patients with pT4 colon cancer develop metachronous peritoneal metastases (PM). Due to restricted accuracy of imaging modalities and absence of early symptoms, PM are often detected at a stage in which only a quarter of patients are eligible for curative intent treatment. Preliminary findings of the COLOPEC trial (NCT02231086) revealed that PM were already detected during surgical re-exploration within two months after primary resection in 9% of patients with pT4 colon cancer. Therefore, second look diagnostic laparoscopy (DLS) to detect PM at a subclinical stage may be considered an essential component of early follow-up in these patients, although this needs confirmation in a larger patient cohort. Furthermore, a third look DLS after a negative second look DLS might be beneficial for detection of PM occurring at a later stage. METHODS: The aim of this study is to determine the yield of second look DLS and added value of third look DLS after negative second look DLS in detecting occult PM in pT4N0-2 M0 colon cancer patients after completion of primary treatment. Patients will undergo an abdominal CT at 6 months postoperative, followed by a second look DLS within 1 month if no PM or other metastases not amenable for local treatment are detected. Patients without PM will subsequently be randomized between routine follow-up including 18 months abdominal CT, or an experimental arm with a third look DLS provided that PM or incurable metastases are absent at the 18 months abdominal CT. Primary endpoint is the proportion of PM detected after a negative second look DLS and will be determined at 20 months postoperative. DISCUSSION: Second look DLS is supposed to result in 10% occult PM, and third look DLS after negative second look DLS is expected to detect an additional 10% of PM compared to routine follow-up alone in patients with pT4 colon cancer. Detection of PM at an early stage will likely increase the proportion of patients eligible for curative intent treatment and subsequently improve survival, given the uniformly reported direct association between the extent of peritoneal disease and survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03413254 , January 2018.

Perioperative systemic therapy and cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC versus upfront cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC alone for isolated resectable colorectal peritoneal metastases: protocol of a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, phase II-III, randomised, superiority study (CAIRO6)

BACKGROUND: Upfront cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC (CRS-HIPEC) is the standard treatment for isolated resectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (PM) in the Netherlands. This study investigates whether addition of perioperative systemic therapy to CRS-HIPEC improves oncological outcomes. METHODS: This open-label, parallel-group, phase II-III, randomised, superiority study is performed in nine Dutch tertiary referral centres. Eligible patients are adults who have a good performance status, histologically or cytologically proven resectable PM of a colorectal adenocarcinoma, no systemic colorectal metastases, no systemic therapy for colorectal cancer within six months prior to enrolment, and no previous CRS-HIPEC. Eligible patients are randomised (1:1) to perioperative systemic therapy and CRS-HIPEC (experimental arm) or upfront CRS-HIPEC alone (control arm) by using central randomisation software with minimisation stratified by a peritoneal cancer index of 0-10 or 11-20, metachronous or synchronous PM, previous systemic therapy for colorectal cancer, and HIPEC with oxaliplatin or mitomycin C. At the treating physician's discretion, perioperative systemic therapy consists of either four 3-weekly neoadjuvant and adjuvant cycles of capecitabine with oxaliplatin (CAPOX), six 2-weekly neoadjuvant and adjuvant cycles of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin with oxaliplatin (FOLFOX), or six 2-weekly neoadjuvant cycles of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin with irinotecan (FOLFIRI) followed by four 3-weekly (capecitabine) or six 2-weekly (5-fluorouracil/leucovorin) adjuvant cycles of fluoropyrimidine monotherapy. Bevacizumab is added to the first three (CAPOX) or four (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI) neoadjuvant cycles. The first 80 patients are enrolled in a phase II study to explore the feasibility of accrual and the feasibility, safety, and tolerance of perioperative systemic therapy. If predefined criteria of feasibility and safety are met, the study continues as a phase III study with 3-year overall survival as primary endpoint. A total of 358 patients is needed to detect the hypothesised 15% increase in 3-year overall survival (control arm 50%; experimental arm 65%). Secondary endpoints are surgical characteristics, major postoperative morbidity, progression-free survival, disease-free survival, health-related quality of life, costs, major systemic therapy related toxicity, and objective radiological and histopathological response rates. DISCUSSION: This is the first randomised study that prospectively compares oncological outcomes of perioperative systemic therapy and CRS-HIPEC with upfront CRS-HIPEC alone for isolated resectable colorectal PM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov/ NCT02758951 , NTR/ NTR6301 , ISRCTN/ ISRCTN15977568 , EudraCT/ 2016-001865-99 .

Utility Scores and Preferences for Surgical and Organ-Sparing Approaches for Treatment of Intermediate and High-Risk Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Organ-sparing approaches, including wait-and-see and local excision, are increasingly being offered to patients with rectal cancer following a good response to neoadjuvant therapy. Preferences regarding these treatment strategies are yet unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the preferences and utility scores for rectal cancer treatment approaches. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional study. SETTING: This study was conducted at the Radiation-Oncology Department of the University Medical Center Utrecht. PATIENTS: Fifty-seven patients with a history of rectal cancer and 38 volunteers were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants assessed 6 hypothetical treatment-outcome scenarios, including short-course radiotherapy or chemoradiation followed by abdominoperineal resection, low anterior resection, local excision, or a wait-and-see approach. The hierarchy in preferences between scenarios was assessed by using ranking. Utilities were estimated with a visual analog scale and time trade-off. RESULTS: Organ-sparing approaches were ranked as the first preferred treatment option by 51% of the participants. Among all scenarios, wait-and-see was most often ranked highest by patients and volunteers (36% and 50%). Meanwhile, a substantial proportion ranked wait-and-see as their lowest preference (38% in patients and 35% in volunteers). Utility scores differed significantly between scenarios. Wait-and-see received a significantly higher score on the visual analog scale than the scenarios including abdominoperineal resection and the scenario including chemoradiation with low anterior resection, and a score similar to the scenarios including local excision and short-course radiotherapy with low anterior resection. LIMITATIONS: The study population consisted of patients with a history of rectal cancer treatment and volunteers related to patients. This may have influenced preferences. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that there is a wide disparity in preferences concerning organ-sparing approaches for rectal cancer in both patients with a history of rectal cancer and volunteers. Wait-and-see is often the highest preferred treatment, but it is also among the least preferred treatment options. These findings give insights into how patients may value the current rectal cancer treatment options. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A521.

Early versus on-demand nasoenteric tube feeding in acute pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Early enteral feeding through a nasoenteric feeding tube is often used in patients with severe acute pancreatitis to prevent gut-derived infections, but evidence to support this strategy is limited. We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial comparing early nasoenteric tube feeding with an oral diet at 72 hours after presentation to the emergency department in patients with acute pancreatitis. METHODS: We enrolled patients with acute pancreatitis who were at high risk for complications on the basis of an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 8 or higher (on a scale of 0 to 71, with higher scores indicating more severe disease), an Imrie or modified Glasgow score of 3 or higher (on a scale of 0 to 8, with higher scores indicating more severe disease), or a serum C-reactive protein level of more than 150 mg per liter. Patients were randomly assigned to nasoenteric tube feeding within 24 hours after randomization (early group) or to an oral diet initiated 72 hours after presentation (on-demand group), with tube feeding provided if the oral diet was not tolerated. The primary end point was a composite of major infection (infected pancreatic necrosis, bacteremia, or pneumonia) or death during 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 208 patients were enrolled at 19 Dutch hospitals. The primary end point occurred in 30 of 101 patients (30%) in the early group and in 28 of 104 (27%) in the on-demand group (risk ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.44; P=0.76). There were no significant differences between the early group and the on-demand group in the rate of major infection (25% and 26%, respectively; P=0.87) or death (11% and 7%, respectively; P=0.33). In the on-demand group, 72 patients (69%) tolerated an oral diet and did not require tube feeding. CONCLUSIONS: This trial did not show the superiority of early nasoenteric tube feeding, as compared with an oral diet after 72 hours, in reducing the rate of infection or death in patients with acute pancreatitis at high risk for complications. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and others; PYTHON Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN18170985.).

Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis: a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: Case series suggest that laparoscopic peritoneal lavage might be a promising alternative to sigmoidectomy in patients with perforated diverticulitis. We aimed to assess the superiority of laparoscopic lavage compared with sigmoidectomy in patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis, with respect to overall long-term morbidity and mortality. METHODS: We did a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label trial in 34 teaching hospitals and eight academic hospitals in Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands (the Ladies trial). The Ladies trial is split into two groups: the LOLA group comparing laparoscopic lavage with sigmoidectomy and the DIVA group comparing Hartmann's procedure with sigmoidectomy plus primary anastomosis. The DIVA section of this trial is still underway but here we report the results of the LOLA section. Patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis were enrolled for LOLA, excluding patients with faecal peritonitis, aged older than 85 years, with high-dose steroid use (≥20 mg daily), and haemodynamic instability. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1:1; stratified by age [<60 years vs ≥60 years]) using secure online computer randomisation to laparoscopic lavage, Hartmann's procedure, or primary anastomosis in a parallel design after diagnostic laparoscopy. Patients were analysed according to a modified intention-to-treat principle and were followed up after the index operation at least once in the outpatient setting and after sigmoidoscopy and stoma reversal, according to local protocols. The primary endpoint was a composite endpoint of major morbidity and mortality within 12 months. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01317485. FINDINGS: Between July 1, 2010, and Feb 22, 2013, 90 patients were randomly assigned in the LOLA section of the Ladies trial when the study was terminated by the data and safety monitoring board because of an increased event rate in the lavage group. Two patients were excluded for protocol violations. The primary endpoint occurred in 30 (67%) of 45 patients in the lavage group and 25 (60%) of 42 patients in the sigmoidectomy group (odds ratio 1·28, 95% CI 0·54-3·03, p=0·58). By 12 months, four patients had died after lavage and six patients had died after sigmoidectomy (p=0·43). INTERPRETATION: Laparoscopic lavage is not superior to sigmoidectomy for the treatment of purulent perforated diverticulitis. FUNDING: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.