Bowel preparation for elective colorectal resection: multi-treatment machine learning analysis on 6241 cases from a prospective Italian cohort.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence concerning bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL), surgical site infections (SSIs), and overall morbidity (any adverse event, OM) after elective colorectal surgery using four different types of bowel preparation. METHODS: A prospective database gathered among 78 Italian surgical centers in two prospective studies, including 6241 patients who underwent elective colorectal resection with anastomosis for malignant or benign disease, was re-analyzed through a multi-treatment machine-learning model considering no bowel preparation (NBP; No. = 3742; 60.0%) as the reference treatment arm, compared to oral antibiotics alone (oA; No. = 406; 6.5%), mechanical bowel preparation alone (MBP; No. = 1486; 23.8%), or in combination with oAB (MoABP; No. = 607; 9.7%). Twenty covariates related to biometric data, surgical procedures, perioperative management, and hospital/center data potentially affecting outcomes were included and balanced into the model. The primary endpoints were AL, SSIs, and OM. All the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Compared to NBP, MBP showed significantly higher AL risk (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.23-2.71; p = .003) and OM risk (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.10-1.72; p = .005), no significant differences for all the endpoints were recorded in the oA group, whereas MoABP showed a significantly reduced SSI risk (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.25-0.79; p = .008). CONCLUSIONS: MoABP significantly reduced the SSI risk after elective colorectal surgery, therefore representing a valid alternative to NBP.

Oral Antibiotics Alone versus Oral Antibiotics Combined with Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Propensity Score-Matching Re-Analysis of the iCral 2 and 3 Prospective Cohorts.

The evidence regarding the role of oral antibiotics alone (oA) or combined with mechanical bowel preparation (MoABP) for elective colorectal surgery remains controversial. A prospective database of 8359 colorectal resections gathered over a 32-month period from 78 Italian surgical units (the iCral 2 and 3 studies), reporting patient-, disease-, and procedure-related variables together with 60-day adverse events, was re-analyzed to identify a subgroup of 1013 cases (12.1%) that received either oA or MoABP. This dataset was analyzed using a 1:1 propensity score-matching model including 20 covariates. Two well-balanced groups of 243 patients each were obtained: group A (oA) and group B (MoABP). The primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage (AL) and surgical site infection (SSI) rates. Group A vs. group B showed a significantly higher AL risk [14 (5.8%) vs. 6 (2.5%) events; OR: 3.77; 95%CI: 1.22-11.67; p = 0.021], while no significant difference was recorded between the two groups regarding SSIs. These results strongly support the use of MoABP for elective colorectal resections.

Intraoperative left-sided colorectal anastomotic testing in clinical practice: a multi-treatment machine-learning analysis of the iCral3 prospective cohort.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence about intraoperative anastomotic testing after left-sided colorectal resections is still controversial. The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of Indocyanine Green fluorescent angiography (ICG-FA) and air-leak test (ALT) over standard assessment on anastomotic leakage (AL) rates according to surgeon's perception of anastomosis perfusion and/or integrity in clinical practice. METHODS: A database of 2061 patients who underwent left-sided colorectal resections was selected from patients enrolled in a prospective multicenter study. It was retrospectively analyzed through a multi-treatment machine-learning model considering standard visual assessment (NW; No. = 899; 43.6%) as the reference treatment arm, compared to ICG-FA alone (WP; No. = 409; 19.8%), ALT alone (WI; No. = 420; 20.4%) or both (WPI; No. = 333; 16.2%). Twenty-four covariates potentially affecting the outcomes were included and balanced into the model within the subgroups. The primary endpoint was AL, the secondary endpoints were overall morbidity (OM), major morbidity (MM), reoperation for AL, and mortality. All the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). RESULTS: The WPI subgroup showed significantly higher AL risk (OR 1.91; 95% CI 1.02-3.59; p 0.043), MM risk (OR 2.35; 95% CI 1.39-3.97; p 0.001), and reoperation for AL risk (OR 2.44; 95% CI 1.12-5.31; p 0.025). No other significant differences were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the surgeons' perception of both anastomotic perfusion and integrity (WPI subgroup) was associated to a significantly higher risk of AL and related morbidity, notwithstanding the extensive use of both ICG-FA and ALT testing.

A Study of Alternative TrkA Splicing Identifies TrkAIII as a Novel Potentially Targetable Participant in PitNET Progression.

Pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (PitNETs) are generally benign but comprise an aggressive, invasive, therapy-resistant, metastatic subset, underpinning a need for novel therapeutic targets. PitNETs exhibit low mutation rates but are associated with conditions linked to alternative splicing, an alternative oncogene pathway activation mechanism. PitNETs express the neurotrophin receptor TrkA, which exhibits oncogenic alternative TrkAIII splicing in other neuroendocrine tumors. We, therefore, assessed whether TrkAIII splicing represents a potential oncogenic participant in PitNETs. TrkAIII splicing was RT-PCR assessed in 53 PitNETs and TrkA isoform(s) expression and activation were assessed by confocal immunofluorescence. TrkAIII splicing was also compared to HIF1α, HIF2α, SF3B1, SRSF2, U2AF1, and JCPyV large T antigen mRNA expression, Xbp1 splicing, and SF3B1 mutation. TrkAIII splicing was detected in all invasive and most non-invasive PitNETs and was significantly elevated in invasive cases. In PitNET lineages, TrkAIII splicing was significantly elevated in invasive PIT1 PitNETs and high in invasive and non-invasive SF1 and TPIT lineages. Immunoreactivity consistent with TrkAIII activation characterized PitNET expressing TrkAIII mRNA, and invasive Pit1 PitNETs exhibited elevated HIF2α expression. TrkAIII splicing did not associate with SF3B1 mutations, altered SF3B1, SRSF2, and U2AF1 or JCPyV large T antigen expression, or Xbp1 splicing. Therefore, TrkAIII splicing is common in PitNETs, is elevated in invasive, especially PIT1 tumors, can result in intracellular TrkAIII activation, and may involve hypoxia. The data support a role for TrkAIII splicing in PitNET pathogenesis and progression and identify TrkAIII as a novel potential target in refractory PitNETs.

Abdominal drainage after elective colorectal surgery: propensity score-matched retrospective analysis of an Italian cohort.

BACKGROUND: In Italy, surgeons continue to drain the abdominal cavity in more than 50 per cent of patients after colorectal resection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of abdominal drain placement on early adverse events in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. METHODS: A database was retrospectively analysed through a 1:1 propensity score-matching model including 21 covariates. The primary endpoint was the postoperative duration of stay, and the secondary endpoints were surgical site infections, infectious morbidity rate defined as surgical site infections plus pulmonary infections plus urinary infections, anastomotic leakage, overall morbidity rate, major morbidity rate, reoperation and mortality rates. The results of multiple logistic regression analyses were presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95 per cent c.i. RESULTS: A total of 6157 patients were analysed to produce two well-balanced groups of 1802 patients: group (A), no abdominal drain(s) and group (B), abdominal drain(s). Group A versus group B showed a significantly lower risk of postoperative duration of stay >6 days (OR 0.60; 95 per cent c.i. 0.51-0.70; P < 0.001). A mean postoperative duration of stay difference of 0.86 days was detected between groups. No difference was recorded between the two groups for all the other endpoints. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that placement of abdominal drain(s) after elective colorectal surgery is associated with a non-clinically significant longer (0.86 days) postoperative duration of stay but has no impact on any other secondary outcomes, confirming that abdominal drains should not be used routinely in colorectal surgery.