Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
Add more filters

Database
Language
Affiliation country
Publication year range
1.
Dis Colon Rectum ; 64(12): 1463-1470, 2021 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34508014

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies suggest that watch-and-wait is a safe alternative to total mesorectal excision in selected patients with a clinical complete response after chemoradiotherapy. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the proportion of patients with rectal cancer who may benefit from watch-and-wait. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective analysis of data from prospectively maintained databases. SETTING: This study was conducted at a comprehensive cancer center. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients with stage II or III rectal adenocarcinoma who were treated with total neoadjuvant therapy using induction chemotherapy between 2012 and 2019 under the care of the same surgeon were included. INTERVENTION: Induction-type total neoadjuvant therapy consisted of 8 cycles of leucovorin-fluorouracil-oxaliplatin or 5 cycles of capecitabine-oxaliplatin before chemoradiotherapy. Patients with a clinical complete response were offered watch-and-wait, and patients with residual tumor were offered total mesorectal excision. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Tumor response was assessed with a digital rectal examination, endoscopy, and MRI. Patient characteristics and recurrence-free survival were compared between the watch-and-wait group and the total mesorectal excision group. RESULTS: A total of 88 patients were included in the analysis. One (1%) died during neoadjuvant therapy. Fifty-five patients (62.5%) had an incomplete clinical response and underwent surgery, 10 (18%) of the 55 developed distant metastasis, and 3 (5%) developed local recurrence. The remaining 32 patients (36.3%) had a clinical complete response and underwent watch-and-wait. On average, patients in the watch-and-wait group were older and had smaller, more distal tumors compared with patients in the surgery group. The median radiation dose, number of chemotherapy cycles, rate of adverse events, and length of follow-up did not differ substantively between the total mesorectal excision group and the watch-and-wait group. In the watch-and-wait group, 2 (6%) patients developed tumor regrowth, and one of them had distant metastasis. Recurrence-free survival was significantly higher in the watch-and-wait group. LIMITATIONS: Generalizability, sample size, and follow-up duration were limitations of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of patients with stage II or III rectal cancer can benefit from a watch-and-wait approach with the aim of preserving the rectum if treated with induction-type total neoadjuvant therapy and followed by an experienced multidisciplinary team. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B688. CONSERVACIN DE RGANOS EN PACIENTES CON CNCER DE RECTO TRATADOS CON TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE TOTAL: ANTECEDENTES:Estudios retrospectivos sugieren que observar y esperar es una alternativa segura a la escisión mesorrectal total en pacientes seleccionados con una respuesta clínica completa después de la quimiorradioterapia.OBJETIVO:Determinar la proporción de pacientes con cáncer de recto que pueden beneficiarse de observar y esperar.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo de datos de bases de datos mantenidas de forma prospectiva.ESCENARIO:Centro Oncológico Integral.PACIENTES:Pacientes consecutivos con adenocarcinoma de recto en estadio II o III tratados con TNT utilizando quimioterapia de inducción entre 2012 y 2019 bajo el cuidado del mismo cirujano.INTERVENCIÓN:La terapia neoadyuvante total de tipo inducción consistió en ocho ciclos de leucovorín-fluorouracilo-oxaliplatino o cinco ciclos de capecitabina-oxaliplatino antes de la quimiorradioterapia. A los pacientes con una respuesta clínica completa se les ofreció observar y esperar, y a los pacientes con tumor residual se les ofreció la escisión mesorrectal total.PRINCIPALES RESULTADOS Y MEDIDAS:La respuesta del tumor se evaluó con un tacto rectal, endoscopia y resonancia magnética. Se compararon las características de los pacientes y la supervivencia libre de recurrencia entre el grupo de observación y espera y el grupo de escisión mesorrectal total.RESULTADOS:Se incluyó en el análisis a un total de 88 pacientes. Uno (1%) murió durante la terapia neoadyuvante. Cincuenta y cinco pacientes (62.5%) tuvieron una respuesta clínica incompleta y se sometieron a cirugía; 10 (18%) de los 55 desarrollaron metástasis a distancia y 3 (5%) desarrollaron recidiva local. Los 32 pacientes restantes (36.3%) tuvieron una cCR (respuesta clínica completa) y se sometieron a observar y esperar. En promedio, los pacientes del grupo de observación y espera eran mayores y tenían tumores más pequeños y distales en comparación con el grupo de cirugía. La dosis mediana de radiación, el número de ciclos de quimioterapia, la tasa de eventos adversos y la duración del seguimiento no difirieron sustancialmente entre el grupo de escisión mesorrectal total y el grupo de observación y espera. En el grupo de observación y espera, 2 (6%) pacientes desarrollaron recrecimiento del tumor y uno de ellos tuvo metástasis a distancia. La supervivencia libre de recurrencia fue significativamente mayor en el grupo de observación y espera.LIMITACIONES:Generalizabilidad, tamaño de la muestra, duración del seguimiento.CONCLUSIONES:Aproximadamente un tercio de los pacientes con cáncer de recto en estadio II o III pueden beneficiarse de un abordaje de observación y espera con el objetivo de preservar el recto si se tratan con terapia neoadyuvante total de tipo inducción y son seguidos por un equipo multidisciplinario experimentado. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B688.


Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma/drug therapy , Adenocarcinoma/radiotherapy , Neoadjuvant Therapy/methods , Neoplasm, Residual/surgery , Adenocarcinoma/diagnosis , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/administration & dosage , Case-Control Studies , Chemoradiotherapy/methods , Disease-Free Survival , Female , Humans , Induction Chemotherapy/methods , Male , Middle Aged , Neoadjuvant Therapy/mortality , Neoplasm Metastasis/pathology , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/epidemiology , Neoplasm Staging , Organ Preservation , Proctectomy/methods , Proctectomy/statistics & numerical data , Rectal Neoplasms/pathology , Retrospective Studies , Watchful Waiting
2.
Dis Colon Rectum ; 64(5): 555-562, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33939387

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The advent of immune checkpoint inhibition therapy has dramatically improved survival in patients with skin melanoma. Survival outcomes after resection of anorectal melanoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibition have not been reported. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare survival outcomes following surgical resection of anorectal melanoma between patients who received immune checkpoint inhibition and patients who did not. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective analysis of data from a prospectively maintained database. SETTING: This study was conducted at a comprehensive cancer center. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent surgery for anorectal melanoma between 2006 and 2017 were included. They were stratified according to the use of immune checkpoint inhibition. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were overall and disease-specific survival. RESULTS: Of the 47 patients included in the analysis, 29 (62%) received immune checkpoint inhibition therapy. Twenty-two (76%) of the 29 patients received immune checkpoint inhibition after detection of metastasis or disease progression rather than in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting. Overall survival did not differ significantly between patients who received immune checkpoint inhibition therapy and patients who did not (median, 52 and 20 months; 5-year rate, 41% vs 35%; p = 0.25). Disease-specific survival also did not differ significantly. Our analysis did not identify any clinical or pathological features associated with response to immune checkpoint inhibition therapy or with survival. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its relatively small sample and retrospective design and by the heterogeneous treatment regimen in the immune checkpoint inhibition group. CONCLUSIONS: Immune checkpoint inhibition therapy by itself does not appear to improve survival in patients who undergo resection or excision of anorectal melanoma. Combinations of immune checkpoint inhibition with other therapeutic modalities warrant further investigation. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B499. MELANOMA DE LA MUCOSA ANORRECTAL EN LA ERA DE LOS INHIBIDORES DEL PUNTO DE CONTROL INMUNOLÓGICO: ¿DEBEMOS DE CAMBIAR NUESTRO PARADIGMA DEL MANEJO QUIRÚRGICO: El advenimiento de la terapia de los inhibidores del punto de control inmunológico, han mejorado dramáticamente la supervivencia en pacientes con melanoma de piel. No se han informado los resultados de supervivencia después de la resección del melanoma anorrectal, tratado con inhibidores del punto de control inmunológico.Comparar los resultados de supervivencia después de la resección quirúrgica de melanoma anorrectal entre pacientes que recibieron y no recibieron inhibidores del punto de control inmunológico.Análisis retrospectivo de una base de datos mantenida prospectivamente.Centro oncológico integral.Pacientes que se sometieron a cirugía por melanoma anorrectal entre 2006 y 2017. Los pacientes fueron estratificados según el uso de inhibidores del punto de control inmunológico.Supervivencia global y específica de la enfermedad.De los 47 pacientes incluidos en el análisis, 29 (62%) recibieron terapia de inhibidores del punto de control inmunológico. Veintidós (76%) de los 29 pacientes recibieron inhibidores del punto de control inmunológico después de la detección de metástasis o progresión de la enfermedad, en vez de administración adyuvante o neoadyuvante. La supervivencia global no varió significativamente entre los pacientes que recibieron o no recibieron terapia de inhibidores del punto de control inmunológico (mediana, 52 y 20 meses, respectivamente; tasa a 5 años, 41% frente a 35%, respectivamente; p = 0,25). La supervivencia específica de la enfermedad tampoco varió significativamente. Nuestro análisis no identificó ninguna característica clínica o patológica, asociada con la respuesta a la terapia de inhibidores del punto de control inmunológico o con la supervivencia.Muestra relativamente pequeña y diseño retrospectivo. Régimen de tratamiento heterogéneo en el grupo de inhibidores del punto de control inmunológico.La terapia por sí sola, de inhibidores del punto de control inmunológico, no parece mejorar la supervivencia en pacientes que se someten a resección o escisión de melanoma anorrectal. Las combinaciones de inhibidores del punto de control inmunológico con otras modalidades terapéuticas, merecen una mayor investigación. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B499. (Traducción-Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy).


Subject(s)
Anus Neoplasms/therapy , Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Melanoma/therapy , Proctectomy , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anus Neoplasms/mortality , Chemotherapy, Adjuvant , Digestive System Surgical Procedures/methods , Disease Progression , Disease-Free Survival , Female , Humans , Male , Melanoma/mortality , Melanoma/secondary , Middle Aged , Neoadjuvant Therapy , Rectal Neoplasms/mortality , Rectal Neoplasms/therapy , Retrospective Studies , Survival Rate
3.
Dis Colon Rectum ; 63(7): 897-902, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32217857

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A watch-and-wait strategy is a nonoperative alternative to sphincter-preserving surgery for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who achieve a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant therapy. There are limited data about bowel function for patients undergoing this organ-preservation approach. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare bowel function in patients with rectal cancer managed with a watch-and-wait approach with bowel function in patients who underwent sphincter-preserving surgery (total mesorectal excision). DESIGN: This was a retrospective case-control study using patient-reported outcomes. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a comprehensive cancer center. PATIENTS: Twenty-one patients underwent a watch-and-wait approach and were matched 1:1 with 21 patients from a pool of 190 patients who underwent sphincter-preserving surgery, based on age, sex, and tumor distance from the anal verge. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Bowel function was measured using the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Bowel Function Instrument. RESULTS: Patients in the watch-and-wait arm had better bowel function on the overall scale (median total score, 76 vs 55; p < 0.001) and on all of the subscales, with the greatest difference on the urgency/soilage subscale (median score, 20 vs 12; p < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its retrospective design, small sample size, and temporal variability between surgery and time of questionnaire completion. CONCLUSIONS: A watch-and-wait strategy correlated with overall better bowel function when compared with sphincter-preserving surgery using a comprehensive validated bowel dysfunction tool. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B218. FUNCIÓN EVACUATORIA INFORMADA POR PACIENTES EN CÁNCER RECTAL MANEJADO CON UNA ESTRATEGIA DE OBSERVAR Y ESPERAR DESPUÉS DE LA TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE: UN ESTUDIO DE CASOS Y CONTROLES: Observar y esperar es una alternativa no operativa a la cirugía de preservación del esfínter para pacientes con cáncer rectal localmente avanzado que logran una respuesta clínica completa después de la terapia neoadyuvante. Hay datos limitados sobre la función evacuatoria en pacientes sometidos a este abordaje para preservación de órganos.Evaluar la función evacuatoria en pacientes con cáncer rectal manejados con observar y esperar comparado a pacientes sometidos a cirugía de preservación de esfínteres (escisión mesorrectal total).Estudio retrospectivo de casos y controles utilizando resultados reportados por pacientes.Centro especializado oncológico.21 pacientes se sometieron a observar y esperar y se compararon con 21 pacientes de un grupo de 190 pacientes que se sometieron a cirugía de preservación de esfínteres controlando por edad, sexo y la distancia del tumor al borde anal.Función evacuatoria utilizando un instrumento de valoración del Centro de Cáncer Memorial Sloan Kettering.Los pacientes de observar y esperar demostraron mejor función evacuatoria en la escala general (puntuación total media, 76 versus 55; p <0,001) y en todas las subescalas, con la mayor diferencia en la subescala de urgencia / ensuciamiento fecal (puntuación media, 20 versus 12; p <0,001).Diseño retrospectivo, numero de muestra pequeño y variabilidad temporal entre la cirugía y el tiempo de finalización del cuestionario.Observar y esperar se correlacionó con mejor función evacuatoria en general en comparación con la cirugía de preservación del esfínter utilizando una herramienta integral validada para la disfunción evacuatoria. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B218. (Traducción-Dr. Adrián Ortega).


Subject(s)
Defecation/physiology , Neoadjuvant Therapy/methods , Rectal Neoplasms/therapy , Watchful Waiting/methods , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Case-Control Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Staging , Organ Preservation/methods , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Rectal Neoplasms/pathology , Retrospective Studies , Time Factors
4.
Surg Endosc ; 33(3): 966-971, 2019 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30350106

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The use of the da Vinci robotic platform for total colectomy has been limited by the need to reposition the patient-side surgical cart from one side of the patient to the other, which increases operative time. In this study, we examined the feasibility of robotic total colectomy using the da Vinci Xi model, which offers a rotating boom-mounted system and laser-targeted trocar positioning. METHODS: The study cohort consisted of 23 patients who underwent minimally invasive total colectomy for cancer or polyposis syndromes at a comprehensive cancer center between 2015 and 2017. Of the 23 colectomies, 15 were robotic and eight were laparoscopic. For the robotic colectomies, trocars were placed in the supraumbilical region and all four quadrants. The da Vinci Xi robot was placed between the patient's legs, and the boom was rotated from left to right and then to the middle in order to work sequentially on the right colon, the left colon, and the pelvis. Operating time and short-term outcomes were compared between the patients who underwent robotic surgery and the patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery. RESULTS: The two groups of patients were comparable in age, gender, BMI, physical status, and disease types. In the robotic group, median length of stay (4 vs. 6 days, p = 0.047) was significantly shorter and median operative time (243 vs. 263 min, p = 0.97) and median estimated blood loss (50 vs. 100 ml; p = 0.08) were similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: With the da Vinci Xi boom-mounted system, total abdominal colectomy can be performed without the need to move the patient-side surgical cart and is associated with shorter length of stay and similar operative time compared to the laparoscopic approach.


Subject(s)
Colectomy/methods , Colorectal Neoplasms/surgery , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/methods , Robotic Surgical Procedures , Adenomatous Polyposis Coli/surgery , Adult , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Operative Time , Robotic Surgical Procedures/instrumentation , Robotics , Surgical Instruments , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL