The prognostic impact of RAS on overall survival following liver resection in early versus late-onset colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The impact of molecular aberrations on survival after resection of colorectal liver metastases (CLM) in patients with early-age-onset (EOCRC) versus late-age-onset colorectal cancer (LOCRC) is unknown. METHODS: Patients who underwent liver resection for CLM with known RAS, BRAF and MSI status were retrospectively studied. The prognostic impact of RAS mutations by age was analysed with age as a categorical variable and a continuous variable. RESULTS: The study included 573 patients, 192 with EOCRC and 381 with LOCRC. The younger the age of onset of CRC, the greater the negative impact on overall survival of RAS mutations in the LOCRC, EOCRC, and ≤40 years (hazard ratio (HR), 1.64 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.23-2.20), 2.03 (95% CI, 1.30-3.17), and 2.97 (95% CI, 1.44-6.14), respectively. Age-specific mortality risk and linear regression analysis also demonstrated that RAS mutations had a greater impact on survival in EOCRC than in LOCRC (slope: -4.07, 95% CI -8.10 to 0.04, P = 0.047, R2 = 0.08). CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing CLM resection, RAS mutations have a greater negative influence on survival in patients with EOCRC, more so in patients ≤40 years, than in patients with LOCRC and should be considered as a prognostic factor in multidisciplinary treatment planning.

Minimally invasive management of the entire treatment sequence in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer: a propensity-score weighting analysis.

BACKGROUND: In patients with stage IV colorectal cancer (CRC), minimally invasive surgery (MIS) may offer optimal oncologic outcome with low morbidity. However, the relative benefit of MIS compared to open surgery in patients requiring multistage resections has not been evaluated. METHODS: Patients who underwent totally minimally invasive (TMI) or totally open (TO) resections of CRC primary and liver metastases (CLM) in 2009-2016 were analyzed. Inverse probability of weighted adjustment by propensity score was performed before analyzing risk factors for complications and survival. RESULTS: The study included 43 TMI and 121 TO patients. Before and after adjustment, TMI patients had significantly less cumulated postoperative complications (41% vs. 59%, p = 0.001), blood loss (median 100 vs. 200 ml, p = 0.001) and shorter length of hospital stay (median 4.5 vs. 6.0 days, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis identified TO approach vs. MIS (OR = 2.4, p < 0.001), major liver resection (OR = 4.4, p < 0.001), and multiple CLM (OR = 2.3, p = 0.001) as independent risk factors for complications. 5-year overall survival was comparable (81% vs 68%, p = 0.59). CONCLUSION: In patients with CRC undergoing multistage surgical treatment, MIS resection contributes to optimal perioperative outcomes without compromise in oncologic outcomes.

Oncologic Outcomes of Extended Robotic Resection for Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Surgery for locally advanced rectal cancers beyond the plane of total mesorectal excision (TME) or extramesorectal nodal involvement should include complete resection. This study evaluated the oncologic feasibility and safety of robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer beyond the TME plane. METHODS: The study analyzed the operative, perioperative, and oncologic outcomes for all patients who underwent robot-assisted extended rectal cancer surgery from April 2009 to February 2015. RESULTS: Of 36 patients, 22 underwent multivisceral en bloc resection, and 18 underwent extramesorectal lymph node (EMRLN) dissection. The median tumor location was 5 cm [interquartile range (IQR), 2.2-9.0 cm] from the anal verge. A total of 32 patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy. The median body mass index of the patients was 26.8 kg/m(2) (IQR, 24.0-31.9 kg/m(2)). Conversion was required for one patient because of inability to tolerate the Trendelenburg position. All the resections were R0, and there were no incomplete TMEs. The vagina and prostate or periprostatic structures were the most commonly resected (n = 13/22), and the lateral pelvic nodes were the most common EMRLNs (n = 16/18). The median numbers of examined mesorectal lymph nodes and EMRLNs were respectively 20 (IQR, 18.0-28.0) and 2.5 (IQR, 1.0-6.0). The median hospital stay was 4 days (IQR, 3.0-5.5 days). Six patients experienced Clavien-Dindo grade 3 complications, the most common of which was deep abscess (n = 5, 13.8 %). The 5-year actuarial local recurrence rate was 3.6 %. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive resection for rectal cancer can be performed with extended lymph node dissection or en bloc multivisceral resection using the surgical robot in selected patients. This technique is feasible and has acceptable morbidity.

Colorectal cancer during pregnancy or postpartum: Case series and literature review.

Background: Colorectal cancer in young adults is on the rise. This rise combined with delayed childbearing increases the likelihood of colorectal cancer diagnosed during pregnancy or in the postpartum period. Methods: Electronic health records were used to identify individuals with colorectal cancer in pregnancy or the postpartum period from 1 August 2007 to 1 August 2019. Results: Forty-two cases were identified. Median age at diagnosis was 33 years. Most (93%) were diagnosed in an advanced stage (III or IV) and had left-sided colorectal cancer tumors (81%). Molecular analysis was completed in 18 (43%) women with microsatellite status available in 40 (95%). The findings were similar to historical controls. Sixty percent were diagnosed in the postpartum period. Common presenting symptoms were rectal bleeding and abdominal pain. Conclusion: Currently there is no consensus recommendation regarding how to manage colorectal cancer during pregnancy. Given the overlapping symptoms with pregnancy, patients often present with advanced disease. We encourage all health care professionals caring for pregnant women to fully evaluate women with persistent gastrointestinal symptoms to rule out colorectal cancer.

Correction to: A systematic review of patient perspectives on surveillance after colorectal cancer treatment.

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The online supplementary files are missing. The complete version of online supplementary materials are published with this erratum.

Clinical and Genetic Implications of DNA Mismatch Repair Deficiency in Biliary Tract Cancers Associated with Lynch Syndrome.

PURPOSE: Patients with Lynch syndrome (LS) have a significantly elevated lifetime risk of developing biliary tract cancers (BTCs) compared to the general population. However, few studies have characterized the clinical characteristics, genetic features, or long-term outcomes of mismatch-repair deficient (dMMR) cholangiocarcinomas associated with LS. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained Familial High-Risk GI Cancer Clinic database identified all patients with BTCs evaluated from 2006 to 2016 who carried germline mutations in MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2. RESULTS: Eleven patients with BTCs were identified: four perihilar, four intrahepatic, one extrahepatic, one gallbladder, and one ampulla of Vater. All patients had underlying germline mutations and a personal history of a LS-associated malignancy, most commonly (63.3%) colorectal cancer. Ten (90.9%) patients were surgically explored, and margin negative resection was possible in seven (63.3%). Chemotherapy (90.9%) and/or chemoradiation (45.5%) was administered to most patients. Among the seven patients presenting with non-metastatic disease who underwent surgical resection with curative intent, the 5-year overall survival rate was 53.3%. The median overall survival for the four patients not treated with curative intent was 17.2 months. CONCLUSIONS: dMMR biliary tract cancers associated with LS are rare but long-term outcomes may be more favorable than contemporaneous cohorts of non-Lynch-associated cholangiocarcinomas. Given the emerging promise of immunotherapy for patients with dMMR malignancies, tumor testing for dMMR followed by confirmatory germline testing should be considered in patients with BTC and a personal history of other LS cancers.

A systematic review of patient perspectives on surveillance after colorectal cancer treatment.

PURPOSE: Surveillance after colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment is routine, but intensive follow-up may offer little-to-no overall survival benefit. Given the growing population of CRC survivors, we aimed to systematically evaluate the literature for the patient perspective on two questions: (1) How do CRC patients perceive routine surveillance following curative treatment and what do they expect to gain from their surveillance testing or visits? (2) Which providers (specialists, nursing, primary care) are preferred by CRC survivors to guide post-treatment surveillance? METHODS: Systematic searches of PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, the CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were conducted. Studies were screened for inclusion by two reviewers, with discrepancies adjudicated by a third reviewer. Data were abstracted and evaluated utilizing validated reporting tools (CONSORT, STROBE, CASP) appropriate to study design. RESULTS: Citations (3691) were screened, 91 full-text articles reviewed, and 23 studies included in the final review: 15 quantitative and 8 qualitative. Overall, 12 studies indicated CRC patients perceive routine surveillance positively, expecting to gain reassurance of continued disease suppression. Negative perceptions described in six studies included anxiety and dissatisfaction related to quality of life or psychosocial issues during follow-up. Although 5 studies supported specialist-led care, 9 studies indicated patient willingness to have follow-up with non-specialist providers (primary care or nursing). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' perceptions of follow-up after CRC are predominantly positive, although unmet needs included psychosocial support and quality of life. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Survivors perceived follow-up as reassuring, however, surveillance care should be more informative and focused on survivor-specific needs.

A comparison between Lynch syndrome and sporadic colorectal cancer survivors' satisfaction with their healthcare providers.

This study evaluated provider satisfaction in a sample of colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors with and without Lynch syndrome (LS). Participants were case-case-matched CRC survivors with (n = 75) or without (n = 75) LS (mean age of 55; range: 27-93). Participants completed a mailed questionnaire assessing demographics, clinical characteristics, healthcare utilization, psychosocial variables, and provider satisfaction. LS CRC survivors reported lower provider satisfaction scores on three subscales of the Primary Care Assessment Survey: communication (78.14 vs. 83.96; P < 0.05), interpersonal treatment (78.58 vs. 85.30; P < 0.05), and knowledge of the patient (60.34 vs. 69.86; P < 0.01). Among LS CRC survivors, predictors for mean communication and trust subscale scores were location of treatment and socioeconomic status. Higher mean depression scores also were associated with trust, while social support predicted higher satisfaction with communication. Sporadic CRC survivor satisfaction is driven largely by age (communication, interpersonal treatment) and patient anxiety (communication), while seeing a provider more often was associated with increased satisfaction with knowledge of the patient. LS CRC survivors reported lower levels of provider satisfaction than sporadic CRC survivors. LS survivors who received care at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, a comprehensive cancer center (CCC), reported higher satisfaction than those receiving care at other institutions. Depressive symptoms and socioeconomic status may impact provider satisfaction ratings. Exploration of other potential predictors of provider satisfaction should be examined in this population. Additionally, further research is needed to examine the potential impact of provider satisfaction on adherence to medical recommendations in LS CRC survivors, particularly those being treated outside of CCCs.

Health-related quality of life in colorectal cancer survivors: are there differences between sporadic and hereditary patients?

PURPOSE: To compare health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors with sporadic CRC to those with hereditary cancer, specifically Lynch syndrome (LS). METHODS: Participants completed a mailed self-administered questionnaire that assessed, among other things, demographics, clinical characteristics, and health-related quality of life. Using a case-case design, CRC survivors with LS or sporadic cancer were matched on age, sex, race/ethnicity, cancer stage, geography, and time since diagnosis. Participants were recruited from patient registries at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (MD Anderson) (n = 33 LS; n = 75 sporadic) and through social media (n = 42 LS). The final sample included 71 LS and 74 sporadic CRC survivors. RESULTS: For LS patients, the mean FACT-C HRQoL score was 84.8 (11.9) [Median = 86.0; Interquartile Range-17] compared to sporadic patients mean score of 85.8 (16.7) [Median = 92.0; Interquartile Range-21], which indicates high quality of life for both groups. LS patients and sporadic CRC patients had similar HRQoL mean scores across 7 different HRQoL metrics, with no significant differences between groups. Exploratory regression analyses indicate some differences in known predictors of HRQoL by group despite no bivariate differences. CONCLUSIONS: HRQoL is an important component of survivorship in CRC patients. Given the clinical distinctions between LS and sporadic patients, we expected to find significant differences between these patients. However, the patients' experiences/quality of life does not appear to illustrate such a clear dissimilarity within CRC survivors. Given the limited data in this area, larger studies, ideally with data obtained from multiple sites, is needed to better investigate the alignment between clinical determination and patient experience as well as to explore the relationship between HRQOL, treatment regimens, and health outcomes.