Appendiceal adenocarcinoma, diagnosed after acute perforated appendicitis: Potential contribution of HIPEC.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment of peritoneal metastasis from appendicular adenocarcinoma consists of cyto-reductive surgery (CRS) and Hyperthermic IntraPEritoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC). In case of acute appendicular syndrome (AAS) the tumor is likely to be perforated. In that case, there is no treatment recommendation. We propose CRS and HIPEC. MATERIALS AND METHOD: We listed 21 consecutive patients who were addressed for discovery of appendiceal adenocarcinoma. The emergency surgery was performed in a primary-care hospital. We evaluated the therapeutic algorithms, per operative decision, survival and recurrent rate. RESULTS: Among the 21 patients, 4 patients were diagnosed as synchronous appendicular peritoneal metastasis, and underwent CRS and HIPEC. The other 17 patients with diagnosis of adenocarcinoma on anatomopathological samples, without peritoneal metastasis during appendectomy, were addressed. Between them 2 patients were denied CRS. Among the 15 operated patients, 8 patients had no peritoneal metastasis discovery during surgery, and therefore underwent prophylactic CRS and HIPEC. Peritoneal metastasis were discovered for the other 7 patients, who also underwent CRS and HIPEC. For the prophylactic group, the recurrence rate is 12,5 %, overall survival (OS) is 100 %. The rate of grade III-IV surgical complications after CRS and HIPEC was 36 % among the 19 patients who underwent surgery. CONCLUSION: In case of appendectomy in emergency situations for perforated adenocarcinoma, half of the patients may have peritoneal metastasis. In case of non-identified peritoneal metastasis during CRS, performing a prophylactic HIPEC seems to be associated with an encouraging rate of peritoneal disease free situation at 5 years.

Delayed pull-through coloanal anastomosis without temporary stoma: an alternative to the standard manual side-to-end coloanal anastomosis with temporary stoma? A comparative study in 223 patients with low rectal cancer.

AIM: After total mesorectal excision (TME) for low rectal cancer, current guideline recommendations for sphincter-saving surgery are to perform a side-to-end manual coloanal anastomosis (CAA) (or with J-pouch) with a temporary stoma. Our study aimed to evaluate if delayed pull-through coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) without a temporary stoma could represent a safe alternative in low rectal cancer. METHOD: From 2003 to 2020, 223 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer undergoing TME were compared: CAA and diverting stoma (n = 190) versus DCAA without stoma (n = 33). RESULTS: Overall 3-month and severe (Dindo ≥ IIIb) morbidity rates were similar in CAA versus DCAA groups: 34% (65/190) vs. 36% (12/33) and 2.6% (5/190) vs. 3% (1/33), respectively. In the DCAA group, only one patient (3%) underwent reoperation (Hartmann's procedure) at day 3 due to colon necrosis. The anastomotic leakage rate (both clinical and radiological) was significantly higher after CAA than DCAA: 28% (53/190) vs. 3% (1/33; p = 0.00138). Failure of the procedure (with return to stoma) was observed in 8% (15/190) vs. 6% (2/33) of patients after CAA and DCAA respectively (not significant). CONCLUSION: Our comparative study suggested that in patients with low rectal cancer, DCAA without a temporary stoma could represent an interesting alternative to the actual recommended CAA with a temporary ileostomy. DCAA could offer two major advantages over CAA: a significantly lower rate of anastomotic leakage and absence of a temporary stoma and its potential complications (rehospitalization, dehydration, wound hernia after stoma closure).